Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH LEYLAND

Address for Return

of the abridged version of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on British Leyland.—[Mr. Benn.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Scottish Council (Development and Industry)

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next be meeting the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I and my colleagues have met the Scottish Council on a number of occasions since we came into office. We shall continue to do so as necessary.

Mr. Crawford: Today is St. George's Day, when we send our best wishes to our English cousins. When he next meets the Scottish Council will the Secretary of State apologise to it for the Budget introduced last week by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer —a Budget that will do the Scottish Council no good in its efforts to develop the industrial base in Scotland? It is one of the most vicious Budgets that Scotland has had to suffer for many a long year. Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether

he is happy to preside over what will be the longest dole queues in Scotland since the 'thirties, as a result of the Budget?

Mr. Ross: The answer to the first question is "No". The answer to the second question is that, as usual, the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. I shall take the opportunity to apologise to the council on behalf of the House of Commons for a Member of Parliament misleading us in relation to statements made by the council.

Mr. McElhone: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Scottish National Party Member is being less than honest when he omits to praise the efforts of the Secretary of State for Scotland in setting up the Scottish Development Agency and granting £300 million to help the Scotish economy?

Mr. Ross: We have already had meetings with the Scottish Council. It welcomes, without any criticism at all, what we are doing on this matter. The one thing that the Scottish Nationals had better realise is that we cannot isolate Scotland from the economic effects of what is happening in the whole of the United Kingdom. The sooner they realise that, the sooner some of their policies will make sense, but not while they are guided by the counsels of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sproat: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the inability to divorce Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, but does he not agree that it is also impossible to divorce Scotland from Europe? Will he seek an early opportunity to discuss with the Scottish Council the deprivation of up to some 10,000 jobs and over £50 million a year in grants from EEC sources? In particular, will he discuss with the Council the decision by Seagram's, largely because of the Common Market uncertainties, to cancel two projects in Scotland that will lose Scotland about £28 million in investment and 800 new jobs?

Mr. Ross: No, Sir. If the Scottish Council wants to consult me about anything, it usually does, and it usually states what it wants to speak to me about. It has not asked to speak to me about this matter. On other occasions, we suggest certain things about which it is worth


taking the council's views. However, on many of these aspects the hon. Gentleman exaggerates the effect of the Budget. He should not take at face value what is said in the Press about the reasons for this or the reasons for that. I assure him that there is a considerable element of exaggeration in what has been said.

Mr. William Hamilton: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Scottish Council, will he ask where the SNP obtained the figures on which it has based its assertion that Scotland does not have a balance of payments problem? When we faced the Scottish Council with this matter, it said that it had no such evidence and that none could be obtained.

Mr. Ross: The Scottish Council has made it clear that it entirely disagrees with the statements of its former employee and that it certainly does not agree with many of his remarks about the statistics produced in respect of the balance of payments. Like most things, they come out of his head. His remarks change from week to week, from day to day, and according to who is making the speech.

A74

Mr. James White: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fatal accidents have occurred during the past five years on the A74.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Milian): There were 93, in the five years 1970–74 inclusive.

Mr. White: May I draw the Minister's attention to the degree to which people in Scotland are fed up with the perpetual accidents on this road? It is fair to say that I speak with more authority than any other hon. Member.

Mr. Monro: Why?

Mr. White: I shall return to the remark of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) shortly. I draw the Minister's attention to an accident that happened two or three weeks ago, when a wagon ploughed into a stationary bus. Until we get at least a hard shoulder on this road, these accidents will continue to happen. May I say how surprised I was at the complacency of the hon. Member for Dumfries—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not at Question Time.

Mr. Millan: While any accidents on any road are to be deplored, the accident rate in accidents per million vehicle miles on this road is below average for this type of road. My information about the circumstances of the accident to which my hon. Friend referred is rather different from his.

Mr. Monro: I thank the Minister for his reply. How much money does he hope to be able to spend in the coming year on minor improvements and the provision of underpass for livestock? I appreciate that in the present economic climate we cannot move to motorway standards, which are ultimately desirable.

Mr. Millan: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about not being able to move to motorway standards. I should have to have notice of the question concerning the amount of money likely to be spent in the current year, because such matters are not directly my responsibility.

Area Health Boards

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria, other than that of age, he used in deciding to dispense with the services of certain of the existing members of area health boards.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Robert Hughes): No specific criteria are applied. At each round of appointments some changes are made to enable as many people as possible to contribute to the work of health boards while maintaining a proper balance of members, geographically and by age, sex and experience, on each board.

Mr. Gray: Does the Minister not agree that his present method of selection leaves a great deal to be desired? Is it not ridiculous that in the Highland Health Board one of the youngest members has been dispensed with, after only two years of service, in which he proved himself one of the most valuable members of the board? Is this not just an example of a sell-out by the Government, in order to try to get their supporters, limited though they may be, on to the various health boards?

Mr. Hughes: Of course I would not agree at all with what the hon. Gentleman says. He will recall that we sent out a document called "The National Health Service and the Community in Scotland", which was widely commented on and discussed, in which we set out the kind of pattern of membership that we were trying to get in the health boards. As far as possible we have tried to get that pattern. It has not been possible in every case. But if we are to move to that pattern, which was widely accepted in Scotland, some people have to come off boards. Many people are disappointed, but unfortunately these things have to take place.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the previous Conservative Secretary of State appointed to an area health board a lady who belongs to Yorkshire and lives in Midlothian, whose only qualification was that she was defeated as a Conservative candidate at the last two General Elections in 1974? Is it not time that my hon. Friend took steps to undo that sort of political discrimination in this matter?

Mr. Hughes: I note my hon. Friend's remarks. There is a later Question on the Order Paper dealing with political affiliation.

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the appointments to area health boards in 1975 have been of members of the Labour Party or persons who sit as Labour members of local authorities; and how many of qualified nurses.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On the question of political affiliation, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply to his Question of 11th December 1974.—[Vol. 883, c. 494–6.] Nine of the members appointed from 1st April 1975 are qualified nurses.

Mr. Monro: Does the Minister accept that he is either being hypocritical or is out of touch with the facts? Does he deny that at least 70 per cent. of the new appointments are of members of the Labour Party? Further, after all the hoo-ha and his criticism of nurses, why has he appointed only nine nurses to area health boards since he came into office?

Mr. Hughes: On the latter point, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he did

not appoint any nurses. There are now 15 persons with nursing experience on area health boards, together with a number of other health care staff. We have kept our promise to remove the embargo on serving nurses in the health service being appointed to the boards.
On the first point—the hon. Gentleman has done his homework—if it is true that 70 per cent. of the appointees are members of the Labour Party, I am gratified that my selection has been good.

Mr. Lambie: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of my constituents in Central Ayrshire and of the people of North Ayrshire on the appointments that he has made to the Ayrshire and Arran Area Health Board? Is he aware that by removing certain Tories who were nominated by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), representing areas like Ayr, Troon and Prestwick, and replacing them with good Labour Party people, representing areas like Central Ayrshire and North Ayrshire, he is due for congratulation? When shall we have another opportunity of removing more Tories—because we are still underrepresented in the Irvine area?

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. We have been working towards the pattern of membership laid down in the document "The National Health Service and the Community". The fact that it has caused dissatisfaction in other quarters in conseqence is to be welcomed.

Mr. Monro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hate raising the matter now, but the Minister has made a contradictory statement on facts about appointments to health boards by the previous Government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Scottish Assembly

Mr. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now name the site and building for the Scottish Assembly.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): No decision has yet been taken on where the Assembly will be located in Edinburgh.

Mr. Reid: Does the Minister appreciate that his reply will be received with deep suspicion in Scotland? Is he saying that the Government's timetable for devolution is bang on target, whereas last Thursday the Leader of the House indicated that the White Paper might be slipped back as far as the autumn? Will the hon. Gentleman answer a straight question? How long will it take to draft the Assembly Bill? If it takes five or six months, how, in view of his prevarication today, can it be laid before the House in November?

Mr. Ewing: The House and the people of Scotland will be aware that the hon. Gentleman and his friends, through Press comments, do much to lead to deep suspision on this subject or any other subject. I doubt whether I have ever seen in any of the newspapers in Scotland, circulating within or outside his constituency, a factual report of a meeting that the hon. Gentleman has attended or a Question that he has asked in the House.
On this question, the Property Services Agency is carrying out a study of various buildings in Scotland, including the former Royal High School, Donaldson's School and the Church of Scotland Assembly Hall. We expect to receive a report in the very near future, although I cannot possibly say at present when a statement will be made. However, the hon. Gentleman will be deeply disappointed inasmuch as when our proposals are published he and Scotland will see that they form a very comprehensive package which wil be acceptable to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: Was not that supplementary question of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) rather curious? In a speech in my constituency he expressed his deep desire for us to be part of the EEC. He may want the Scottish Assembly—[Interruption.] It was printed in the Greenock Telegraph. The hon. Gentleman knows that. He may, perhaps, want the Scottish Assembly to be in Brussels.

Mr. Ewing: I understand that a factual account of what happened at the charity dinner was described by the Greenock Telegraph, and that the hon. Gentleman expressed a desire to remain in Europe. This reflects the inconsistency of the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Reid: I should like to take the opportunity of correcting the remarks of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I made it obvious that at that particular meeting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Does he appreciate that at that meeting I did not make that remark? I said, first, that Scotland should seek a Norwegian-type deal. That was the burden of my remarks.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I try to avoid points of order at Question Time. If an allegation is made against an hon. Member, I do, in my discretion, call him for another supplementary question, which I did in this case.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter affects my honour, since I am reporting accurately and honestly what appeared in my constituency newspaper.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Really, the object of Question Time is to get information from Ministers and not to make allegations against other hon. Members.

Mr. Ewing: Even after the second supplementary question of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling-shire (Mr. Reid), his question is no clearer than it was after his first.

Mr. Grimond: As well as a site for the Assembly, are the Government aware that Scotland also needs sites for an increased Civil Service and executive staff? Will the Minister assure us that planning is going forward for running down the Civil Service in London and moving staff to Edinburgh? What public participation will there be in the ultimate decision where the Assembly and these other buildings are to be situated?

Mr. Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman will accept that all these matters are matters for consultation between the various staff associations and for discussion and study within the Constitution Unit. This exercise is proceeding, and the House will be made aware of decisions as they are made.

Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate fully that the Government must take great care in the formulation of their proposals for the Assembly. However, will the Minister now give the House an assurance that a


White Paper will be published in advance of the Bill to implement these proposals, in order that the House and the country as a whole may consider in detail the proposals that the Government are putting forward?

Mr. Ewing: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President and not for me. The Lord President will no doubt take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Scottish Trades Union Congress

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the STUC.

Mr. William Ross: I attended the annual conference of the Scottish Trades Union Congress in Aberdeen on Friday 18th April. I shall of course be continuing my normal practice of close and regular contacts with it in the future.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Secretary of State aware that his meeting with the STUC at Aberdeen, at which he was supported by the Secretary of State for Employment and the Prime Minister, resulted in the total rejection by the STUC of the social contract and the election of a Communist as General Secretary of the STUC? In those circumstances, does the Secretary of State agree that the prospect for industrial relations in Scotland does not look at all good? What steps do he and his Government colleagues propose to take to improve this situation?

Mr. Ross: That was a fairly omnibus and diffuse question. First, I should like to put the hon. Gentleman right. It was not a meeting; it was a conference. Secondly, the Prime Minister was not there. Thirdly, the Secretary of State for Employment and I spoke after the resolution to which the hon. Gentleman refers was discussed. I have not the slightest doubt that had I spoken before that, the resolution would have been very difficult.
As regards Mr. James Milne, his was an appointment; it was not an election. He was appointed not for his political affiliations but for his ability to do the job. No doubt it was the same thing that commended him to his right hon. Friend the previous Tory Secretary of

State, when he reaffirmed his appointment to a public body.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep concern in the trade union movement and throughout Scotland about unemployment? As the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, indicated that he thought that unemployment would probably rise to 1 million in Great Britain in the next 12 months, will the Secretary of State now come clean and say what is his estimate, within that figure of 1 million, for Scotland?

Mr. Ross: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. I have heard Ministers of the former Tory Government say that it would be wrong to make estimates in relation to unemployment in the United Kingdom. Certainly it is not my intention to do so for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that unemployment in Scotland has not been rising so fast as in England. That fact does not seem to give him very much comfort As regards the Government proposals which have already been put into effect, I should have liked to see a little more co-operation from the Tory Party in helping to get them on the statute book. I also refer to the Scottish Development Agency Bill. The sooner that is on the statute book the better.

Mrs. Bain: Apart from having regular meetings with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, will the Secretary of State convene a special meeting of the STUC and invite to it leaders of the "Save Scottish Steel" campaign and the Secretary of State for Industry so that he can discuss the report in today's Glasgow Herald that orders for 10,000 tons of steel plate for shipbuilding on the Clyde will be transferred by the British Steel Corporation from Clydeside to Scunthorpe.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Lady misunderstands the position. I do not convene meetings of the STUC; it convenes its own meetings. If it wishes to hold a special meeting on any subject, I have not the slightest doubt that it will write to me about it.

Mrs. Bain: The Secretary of State is not interested. Shame.

Adult Education

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Alexander Report on Adult Education.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Professor Alexander and his committee are to be commended for producing a stimulating and thought-provoking report entitled "Adult Education—The Challenge of Change." I have asked education authorities and other interested bodies to let me have their comments by 30th June and decisions on the report's recommendations will be taken in the light of the comments received.

Mr. Cook: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the period of consultations will not be used as a reason for an indefinite delay in implementing the recommendations of the report, as happened with the English Russell Report, which, three years after publication, remains virtually unimplemented? Will he give us some idea of a timetable for carrying out the recommendations which do not involve any expenditure, for setting up Scottish county or community education facilities? Does he accept that even in these straitened economic times £2 million is a modest price to pay to carry out those recommendations and to make education in Scotland a lifelong process?

Mr. Hughes: As regards my hon. Friend's first point, I asked for comments to be submitted by 30th June. I should not have thought that that was an inordinate delay. There is no question of using that as a reason for not implementing the report. We asked education authorities and others interested to consider particularly those recommendations which did not require additional expenditure. As regards overall development, we must take into account the economic situation. We shall study the comments carefully and bring forward our recommendations as soon as possible.

Mrs. Bain: Has the Minister received any communication from the Strathclyde region on the implementation of the Alexander Report? I have forwarded such communications as I have received. Is the Minister aware that in the Strathclyde region there appears to be no intention

to implement the recommendations of the Alexander Report?

Mr. Hughes: I have no such information.

Mr. Buchan: Can the allegation be denied?

Mr. Hughes: I have received no such information. Once we have received comments from the different interests concerned we shall call for advice and guidance from education authorities and others on the ways in which the report can be implemented.

Regional Policies

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the inhibiting effects of continued membership of the EEC on his pursuit of regional policies as outlined in the consultative document on the creation of a Scottish Development Agency.

Mr. Milian: The Government are satisfied that the establishment of the Scottish Development Agency will not be inhibited by EEC Treaty obligations.

Mr. Hamilton: This question was tabled before the publication of the Scottish Development Agency Bill, which was welcomed by almost everyone in Scotland. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will proceed as speedily as the Opposition parties will allow in putting this legislation on the statute book?

Mr. Millan: We are anxious to proceed with all speed with this Bill. I am sorry that the Conservative Opposition have been unco-operative. However, I dare say that that will change, because I am sure that the Conservatives, like us, want to see this Bill on the statute book at the earliest possible date. Certainly the people in Scotland want that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the money with which he proposes to take over and run industries, firms and businesses in Scotland might be better used to restore the £60 million cut in school building in Scotland, which will affect education in Scotland for many years to come?

Mr. Millan: There has been no £60 million cut in school building allocations


in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to debate these matters, perhaps he will be more co-operative about bringing the SDA Bill forward.

Mr. Steel: As regards the EEC, since the Secretary of State is one of the leaders of disruption, may we know who will proclaim Government policy and the advantages of membership of the EEC to Scotland, and within the country, during the referendum?

Mr. Millan: That matter has already been dealt with.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to ask the Prime Minister to remove the gag which seems to be affecting the Secretary of State? Having voted against membership of the EEC, will he please take the people of Scotland into his confidence? As regards regional policies, does the Minister not agree that albeit that the regional policies of the United Kingdom are inadequate to solve the problems of Scotland, they are a lot better than the paltry efforts of the EEC regional fund?

Mr. Millan: That seems to raise a number of questions. I had not noticed my right hon. Friend being gagged on anything.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: When will the Minister explain?

Local Government Officers(Redundancy Payments)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the top redundancy payment given to a senior local government officer who becomes redundant on 16th May; and if this and other individual amounts will qualify for government financial assistance.

Mr. Millan: Amounts will vary according to the individual circumstances of each officer and to the provisions for compensation which are applicable to them. Payments by employers in terms of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 are supported by a 50 per cent. Government grant. Other payments by local authorities will rank for assistance by way of rate support grant.

Mr. Dempsey: Has my hon. Friend seen the report according to which local government officers are mentioned, a

Glasgow official being entitled to receive £76,000 by way of individual payment, while it is intended that a Lancashire official shall receive £27,000 by way of individual payment? Can my hon. Friend say what effect these considerable payments, along with others, are likely to have on the increases in the rates budgets of the people of Scotland? Will he comment on the fact that many people who will pay these increases are themselves redundant but will receive only partial payment?

Mr. Millan: I shall make two comments on these matters, which refer to the retirement of chief officers. I suppose that giving redundancy or additional payments of this kind is preferable to finding jobs—which would not otherwise exist—specially for them and paying them full salaries for the rest of their working careers, which is one possible alternative.
These payments are made under the Local Government Reorganisation (Retirement of Chief Officers) (Scotland) Regulations 1974, which were subject to a negative resolution in this House. When they were published last year I regret to say that no hon. Member took the slightest interest in them, so they were never debated.

Mr. Reid: Will the Minister bear in mind that the increased costs of local government in Scotland are the responsibility of the Government, which foisted the system on an unwilling Scots public? Will he therefore take steps to ensure that the increased costs are met from Government funds, especially in view of the reports that rates costs increases have topped 50 per cent.?

Mr. Millan: I do not accept those reports. The hon. Gentleman's first statement is equally inaccurate.

Dr. Bray: Is my hon. Friend aware that the level of salaries of certain local government officers, to which the redundancy payments are necessarily related, is a matter of considerable concern in Scotland? Can the Minister hold out any prospect that in future the relativities between local government officers and other public service employees will be corrected.

Mr. Millan: I am not sure what relativities have to be corrected. These are and always have been matters for negotiation between the employers and the


officers concerned, through the various bodies established for these purposes.

Local Councillors (Attendance Allowance)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had to date regarding the need to increase the attendance allowance payment to members of the new local authorities; and if he will consider introducing a loss-of-work supplement where this is required.

Mr. Millan: I have received representations from the local authority associations. The level of the allowance is currently under review. I have no plans, meanwhile, to introduce a loss of work supplement.

Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that a lot of nonsense is talked about the probable abuse of the attendance allowance payment to members of new councils? Many councillors are prepared to suffer financial sacrifice to carry on their work. Is my hon. Friend also aware that if only £10 per day is paid where loss of work is involved, it will mean a reduction in the weekly income on which income tax is paid and that that will be a great hardship to many councillors? Is it not possible to give some kind of grant to persons who incur loss of earnings? Would it not have been better, as we suggested two years ago, for a salary scheme to have been adopted?

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend is raising rather wider questions. The allowances paid now are in substitution for the old financial loss allowance. They are taxable, so the net amount payable is £6·70 per day, which I should not consider excessive. In fact, the rates are under review by a working party covering England and Wales as well as Scotland. I agree that a great many rather wild charges are made against local councillors. The fact is that many local councillors carry out their public duties in a very public-spirited way and at considerable personal expense. I think that we ought to ameliorate that situation as much as we can.

Sir John Gilmour: As certain local councillors have claimed that they will be drawing the attendance allowance every

day, would it not be better to give a supplement to their employers for the lack of work which will occur?

Mr. Millan: The question how often the allowance may be drawn is a matter for local authority arrangement, in terms of the number of meetings which are arranged. Certainly we do not want meetings unnecessarily arranged. There are a number of restrictions in the regulations.

Mr. Welsh: In considering the new authorities, will the Minister take account of the problems facing community councils? Is he happy that community councils have no statutory duties? Is he also happy that community councils may find that their funds are liable to taxation? Moreover, in considering the problem of funding local community councils, is he happy that they may have to spend their energies on raising funds through coffee mornings, and so on, instead of looking after the problems of individuals and overseeing district councils? Lastly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has asked four questions already.

Mr. Millan: I shall answer those various questions when we reach Question No. 22; if we are not prevented from reaching it by unnecessary questions at this stage.

Crofter Housing

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now announce the result of his review of grant and loan limits for crofter housing.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I have nothing to add to the reply which was given to the hon. Member on 28th January 1975.

Mr. Stewart: In view of the time that has elapsed since the last reply, I heard today's reply with great regret and concern. Is the Minister not becoming aware of the great dissatisfaction and concern in crofting counties, with the escalating costs of building and the gap betwen the deposit and what a house will cost? Will he deal with that question, which is now overdue for a solution?

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, loans are available up to £3,000, and the rate of interest, at 3⅛ per cent.,


plus a grant of £2,300, is a substantial subsidisation.
My noble Friend the Minister of State is to meet the Western Isles Islands Council later this month and he will be happy to discuss any outstanding problems in the area.

Mr. MacCormick: For how much longer must we wait for a Bill to reform the whole business of crofting?

Mr. Brown: That matter does not relate to the Question that has been asked. If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer, he must put down a Question.

Dundee

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay a visit to Dundee.

Mr. William Ross: I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Wilson: If the Secretary of State were to make a visit to Dundee now, next week, or in the near future, he would realise that there was a great deal of concern about the revelations in the World in Action programme "Dundee Dossier", which was shown on television last week. That anxiety is shared by many citizens in Dundee, regardless of political affiliation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the revelations and allegations which have been made suggest that there are problems of principle and practice in the conduct of local affairs in Dundee which require urgent examination? The fact that Dundee Corporation will soon cease to operate and will be replaced by a district council will not, in view of the practices which have been suggested, necessarily dissipate the anxieties which have been caused. Will the right hon. Gentleman immediately set up an inquiry into this whole affair?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman talks about "this whole affair". That is rather a vague phrase. He, as a lawyer, will appreciate that the Secretary of State can act only in accordance with his statutory powers. My statutory powers regarding inquiries relate either to formal determinations as required by legislation concerning the statutory powers and functions of local authorities or to the question whether a local authority is in default of its statutory powers. There is no statutory

power to order an inquiry into the actions, attitudes, morals, ethics, or anything else, of an individual councillor. If the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, basically it would be wrong of me to give him an answer. Investigations into allegations of crime and criminal proceedings resulting therefrom are not matters for the Secretary of State. I think that he should know that.

Mr. Doig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this programme amounted to trial by television? This type of programme does not contain the normal safeguards that we have for justice in proper court trial procedures. Therefore, my right hon. Friend ought to look at this type of programme to see what can be done to prevent what is an abuse of justice in this form of trial by television.

Mr. Ross: There is no doubt that this is a dangerous practice, but when people ask me to order an inquiry they should turn their minds back to an earlier Question Time when the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)—I think it was—objected to the unfairness of an inquiry in which no one was on trial but which seemed, evidently, to be accusing someone of a crime. This House of Commons should be careful about these matters and try to be fair to all concerned. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the nature of this matter, and if anyone—this includes BBC people and anyone else—has any information about this kind of thing, he should not sensationalise it in this way but should send it to the Procurator Fiscal or the police.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: When the right hon. Gentleman next visits Dundee will he take the opportunity to support American investment in that city and elsewhere in Scotland, and refute Left Wing the nationalist criticism which will discourage overseas investment in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about the history of American investment, in Dundee in particular he would realise that it was when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was President of the Board of Trade that the greatest surge forward took place in Dundee and in Scotland in that respect.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises—his hon.


Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Doig) made it plain—that, regardless of the merits of the programme, this matter has caused considerable concern in the whole of Dundee and the Tayside Region. In view of the need for the new structure of local government to get off to a good start and have the respect and support of ratepayers and others in the area, will he look at the whole matter closely? Apart from any legal aspects in the Crown Office, if a public inquiry is necessary about what may emerge may we have an assurance that he will deal with this very carefully indeed?

Mr. Ross: I have looked into the matter. The Secretary of State can act only within his statutory powers. The hon. Gentleman should know that. I refer him to the answers given—when the hon. Gentleman was an Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office—by his right hon. Friend who was then Secretary of State for Scotland and who is now in another place. He took up and pointed out this very fact in relation to Dundee.

Fishing Fleet

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has of the profitability of the Scottish fishing fleet during the last six months of 1975.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: It is too early to estimate the effect of the changes in the fleet which are needed to enable it to adjust to the new costs and earnings situation and the measures taken, or contemplated, for protecting the market against low-cost imports.

Sir J. Gilmour: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his safe return from the Law of the Sea Conference and hope he will be able to tell the House what estimate he has made of the possibility of this conference ensuring that particularly the herring industry in Scotland can look forward to this summer with some confidence?

Mr. Brown: I am glad to be back. It is too soon to say what conclusions might be arrived at following the Law of the Sea Conference. It still has two or three weeks to run. The matter of herring quotas is causing us concern because of the scientific advice which has recently

been given to us drawing attention to the need to conserve stocks.

Mr. Watt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a severe deterioration in the economic viability of the Scottish fishing industry since he met fishermen in Aberdeen? Will he consider placing a temporary ban on all imports of fish to try to ameliorate the situation?

Mr. Brown: Some steps have been taken. I wish the hon. Gentleman would give us credit for what we have done. The fishing industry has not got worse just because I met—[interruption.]

Mr. William Ross: I wish members of the SNP would shut up and listen.

Mr. Brown: The fishing industry has not got worse just because I met the fishermen in Aberdeen. Steps have already been taken, which the hon. Gentleman would not even recognise or give us credit for, and some of these alarmist statements are not helping to get a return of the confidence that we are entitled to expect following the steps that we have taken to deal with frozen imports.

Council House Tenants (Evictions)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many evictions from publicly owned houses have taken place in Scotland in each of the past three years.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Housing authorities are not required to provide me with information on evictions. An ad hoc survey, to which most authorities responded. indicated that in 1972 there were about 2,200 evictions by local authorities. The Scottish Special Housing Association evicted 53 tenants in 1972; 41 in 1973: and 39 in 1974.

Mr. Canavan: Will my hon. Friend urge the new local authorities and the SSHA to implement the recommendations of the Morris Report that social work departments should be consulted at an early stage when evictions are being considered, and that if, unfortunately, eviction has to take place as a last resort alternative accommodation must be found for the evicted family? Will my hon. Friend instil a sense of urgency into this matter, in view of the fact that in a few weeks' time housing and social work will


be split between the new districts and new regions, respectively?

Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend says, there are many good and sound recommendations in the Morris Report, and already it is being studied by all the interested parties. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that if, in the light of discussions, any further guidance is needed by local authorities, I shall not hesitate to give it.
My hon. Friend made the point, and it is worth emphasising, that although the Morris Committee is in favour of a reduction in the number of evictions it does not recommend that this should not be part of the powers of a housing authority.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these 2,200 were families on long-term benefit? Is he aware of the growing belief in social work departments that if we could have direct payment of rent by these long-term welfare benefit recipients, many of these evictions could be avoided? Will he consider the direct payment of rent as of right?

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already taken steps to improve the procedure.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not shake his head. He is well aware that, in co-operation with the Department of Health and Social Security and local authorities, steps have been taken to improve things. There is now an improved procedure, and this has already resulted in an increase in the number of direct payments.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the fishing industry.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I had a very full meeting with the industry's representatives on Wednesday 2nd April and I am inviting them to meet me again on 12th May in Aberdeen, when I shall certainly inform them of developments.

Mr. Sproat: I very much appreciate the willingness of the Minister to meet the industry. Will he undertake when

he is in Aberdeen on the 12th, to give an assurance to the industry that if the Law of the Sea Conference breaks up without any agreement on limits, and if other countries move unilaterally as a result, the Government will protect absolutely the rights of the British fishing industry?
Turning now to another financial burden on the industry, will the hon. Gentleman pass on to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade the high feelings of members of the fishing industry about the unjustifiably high fees which they will have to pay for the Department of Trade surveyors for the purpose of the new safety regulations, of which they approve in principle?

Mr. Brown: I shall pass on that view It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.
One of my outstanding impressions of the Law of the Sea Conference is that many countries—EEC, non-EEC and others—are in a similar position to that of this country. If there is not some kind of tangible agreement, or the possibility of a contention coming out of the conference, many countries will need to consider urgently what changes are required in limits.

Mr. Henderson: We hope that the report in the Financial Times yesterday about the difficulties of the conference is in no way connected with the hon. Gentleman's attendance at it, and that a satisfactory conclusion will emerge from it. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Norwegian Government have already asked to open talks with the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and others on an immediate increase in limits to 50 miles? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the appalling cut in the herring quota which his scientists have announced and which will drive many Scottish boats from the sea brings it home that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends should urgently seek an immediate increase to 50 miles in the fishing limits?

Mr. Brown: There are about four questions involved in what the hon. Gentleman has said. I assure him that the Law of the Sea Conference is moving towards a conclusion, but I am not unduly optimistic about its outcome. It would be wrong to mislead or, perhaps, convey


to people outside—I do not think that I have done it, and the hon. Gentleman should not do it—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is holding up, but I did not write it. He should not be too optimistic for the fishermen of Scotland about what might come out of the conference.
On the question of what the hon. Gentleman has described as the appalling cut in the herring quota, I know of no Government—whether it be the Norwegian Government, the British Government or any other—which could increase tomorrow the number of herring in the sea. The matter is a bit longer-term than that. It is a matter of genuine concern to all the fishing nations in this part of the world that if we do not do something about conservation there may not be any fish left to catch.

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

Mr. Monro: asked the Lord Advocate if he will pay an early official visit to Luxembourg.

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Lord Advocate whether he will visit the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Fairbairn: asked the Lord Advocate if he will pay an official visit to Luxembourg.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I visited Luxembourg in January of this year and on that occasion had very useful discussions with members of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, including Lord Mackenzie Stuart and Advocate General Warner. I have no plans to pay another visit in the immediate future.

Mr. Monro: In view of the Lord Advocate's success in Luxembourg in making the Court of Justice appreciate the affinity between European law and Scots law, why did he vote against the Common Market?

The Lord Advocate: I think that the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in his facts. I appreciate, as a result of my visit to Luxembourg, that there is strong understanding of the affinity to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I am sure that if Britain remains in the Community the links can be strengthened.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that if Britain withdraws from the Community Scotland's unique representation at the European Court will come to an end? In view of the historic links between Scots law and the law of the Continent, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether his abstention on the Government's recommendation that Britain should stay in the Community was as a result of a judicial interpretation of his office or, indeed, whether he has any views on the subject?

The Lord Advocate: I certainly have views on the subject and, with the rest of the British people, I shall exercise them when the referendum takes place.

Mr. Fairbairn: If the Lord Advocate does not go to Luxembourg, in view of his well-known reputation for fairness will he ensure that ten-elevenths of Lord Mackenzie Stuart is returned to Scotland and ten-elevenths of an English judge is sent to Luxembourg, so that Scotland is fairly and proportionately represented—something that the Scottish National Party is anxious to achieve?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman is underlining the point already made that Scotland is adequately and well represented in the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not a matter for grave concern whenever the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) wants anyone to go anywhere?

The Lord Advocate: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the affinities between the Scottish and Continental legal systems to which reference has been made, will the Lord Advocate indicate what attitude his Department is taking to the proposal of the British Council—with, it would appear, the connivance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—to steer European law students who wish to study the Scottish legal system into taking courses in England because of the lack of courses in Scotland?

The Lord Advocate: That matter has concerned me, but if the hon. Gentleman


desires a specific answer it is right that he should ask an appropriate question.

DIVORCE LAW

Mr. Sproat: asked the Lord Advocate what discussions he has had with the Law Society about the reform of Scottish divorce law.

The Lord Advocate: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the Minister primarily responsible for divorce legislation, has had any formal discussions with the Law Society of Scotland about divorce law reform.

Mr. Sproat: Is it not a fact that the Law Society has recommended most strongly that Scottish divorce law should be reformed and brought into harmony with English divorce law? Does the Lord Advocate accept this recommendation, and has he had any indication from the Leader of the House that he will provide Government time to debate this matter? If not, how can he explain to the Law Society and other bodies in Scotland that the Government can provide time to debate hare coursing but will not provide time to discuss a matter which is so important to the happiness or misery of so many people in Scotland?

The Lord Advocate: I agree that the Law Society of Scotland is on record as being strongly in favour of divorce law reform in Scotland. I have made no secret of my commitment to the same objective. There are many competing claims for the parliamentary time available, and it is necessary to strike an appropriate balance, having regard to the strong feelings held by different people about different matters of law reform. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he voted against the divorce law reform proposal advanced by one of my hon. Friends in, I think, 1971.

Mr. McElhone: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the latest figures show that one marriage in five in Scotland is ending in divorce, and that the Government should put as much emphasis on the preservation of marriages and the stability of family life as on divorce reform?

The Lord Advocate: I accept what my hon. Friend has said, but equally,

in fairness, he will accept that there is a strong feeling in Scotland that divorce based on fault is a dated concept, and that it is time that the concept of breakdown was introduced.

Mr. Steel: Has the Lord Advocate considered with the Law Society the possibility of introducing legislation in another place as a means of getting it started?

The Lord Advocate: The Government constantly have that possibility in mind in this field as in any other.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that not only the Law Society of Scotland but the Scottish Law Commission, the Association of Scottish Law Agents and the Muir Society have indicated their support for reform? Does my right hon. and learned Friend know of any legal organisation in Scotland which does not support divorce law reform? Does he recollect that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) assured the House on 26th March that discussions were taking place on the need for reform? Unfortunately, those discussions were brought to an end two hours after my hon. Friend sat down. Was my right hon. and learned Friend involved in those discussions and, if so, what advice did he offer?

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend must know that there are some questions which Ministers do not answer at Question Time. However, on his main point about the attitude of reform bodies in Scotland, so far as I know most of the major law bodies in Scotland are, broadly speaking, in favour of divorce law reform, but I have the impression that a number of bodies are not altogether committed to the proposal which my hon. Friend has put forward in his Bill.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Lord Advocate accept that if a change in the divorce law is necessary it should be made on the merits of the case, and that the question whether or not Scottish law is in or out of harmony with English law is totally irrelevant?

The Lord Advocate: I gladly agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I do not agree with the second part.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the Lord Advocate realises that a question of principle is involved in the provision of Government time on the Floor of the House for private Members' legislation? Will he answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat)? Do the Government attach higher priority to giving time on the Floor of the House to discussing hare coursing than to reform of the divorce laws?

The Lord Advocate: That inference can be drawn. Which matters are to be given priority is a matter for balance and judgment.

Mr. Buchan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is another vehicle in the House for legislation? I hope he will urge the Government to send the question of divorce law reform to the Scottish Grand Committee, so that Scottish Members may decide. I hope that he will persuade the Leader of the Scottish National Party not to object to that, and the leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland not to encourage his Members to object either, as happened on the last occasion.

The Lord Advocate: I take note of what my hon. Friend said and I hope that others in the House will do likewise.

CROWN AGENTS

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): With permission, I wish to make a further statement about the Crown Agents.
The House will recall that just before it rose for the Christmas Recess I explained the immediate problems of the Crown Agents' reserves and liquidity which had been reported to me by the new chairman and board, and announced the Government's agreement to provide immediate support of £85 million and the agreement of the Bank of England to provide standby facilities.
So far the Crown Agents have found no need to draw upon either the £85 million or the standby facility at the Bank of England to meet liquidity problems. We shall all hope that this will continue to be the case. But the support of the Government stands firm and ready. The

grant is there to cover prudent writing down of assets as necessary, and to provide a capital base.
I would also like the House to know of the confidence I have in Mr. John Cuckney, the new Chairman of the Crown Agents, and in his board. In the most difficult circumstances, they are overcoming the problems they faced on appointment with considerable success. Since December, overseas principals have increased the scope and scale of their business with the Crown Agents. Confidence has increased, and it is right that this should be so, for the steady and gradual withdrawal from property investments and secondary banking, according to my directive, is restoring a fundamental financial soundness in their operations.
I have now made further appointments to the board. I have appointed Mr. Harry Hoff, Mr. James Jack and, with effect from 1st July, Mrs. Hester Boothroyd to join Mr. Leslie Kirkley and Mr. John Gordon as members of the board. I have also appointed Mr. John Goble, at present a member of the board, as deputy chairman.
I promised to keep the House informed. I can now make an interim report—not yet a final one, for reasons I shall make clear. In doing so, I know the House will understand and appreciate that it concerns not the present but the past.
The chairman has provided me with his board's views on the circumstances which led to the need for financial support, which have been assisted by the investigations carried out by Coopers and Lybrand, the consulting accountants. These are not yet complete. They have had to work on a very large number of transactions made over a long period of time.
The principal factors which the board considers to have contributed to the problems are: first, the operation of a substantial banking business without an adequate capital base; second, over-dependence on the property and secondary banking sectors, and commitment of an unduly large proportion of the total banking resources to a small number of borrowers; third, inadequate controls and procedures for approving and monitoring loans to subsidiary and associated companies, for security for advances, and for the delegation of authority; fourth,


lack of outside commercial banking experience among senior staff. These defects of the past are rapidly being remedied.
The Government have reached two major conclusions in the matter. We believe it important and necessary, and the board of the Crown Agents recommends it, to arrange for an independent inquiry into past events and the circumstances giving rise to the need for Government support. Accordingly, I have decided to set up a committee of inquiry with the following terms of reference:
To inquire into the circumstances which led to the Crown Agents requesting financial assistance from the Government.
The inquiry will be conducted by Judge Fay, sitting with Sir Edmund Compton and an accountant. There will, of course, be complete protection of the confidential interests of the overseas principals.
We also propose to give further consideration to the relationship between the Crown Agents and the Government. I shall present a White Paper to the House at a later stage—I hope during this Session—with my detailed proposals, along with the necessary background information about past custom and practice.
Now that I have presented those two major conclusions, I know that hon. Members will wish to join with me in expressing their confidence and support in the present chairman and his board, and in congratulating them on their very great success in the last few months.

Mr. Wood: Does the right hon. Lady recall chiding me, in that gentle way she has, with delay in these matters? Does she recognise that she started these investigations in the 1960s and they now look like going into the late 1970s if, indeed, she is still responsible for conducting them?
In the statement in which the right hon. Lady has announced the setting up of the inquiry has she not to a large extent prejudged the findings of the inquiry? Finally, what powers is the committee of inquiry to have? Amongst other things, will Sir Claude Hayes and others closely concerned have full freedom to state their views in accordance with the recommendations of the Salmon Committee?

Mrs. Hart: I confess that I am a little surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's

tone. He will recollect, because he has great knowledge of this matter, that I had asked for a study to be made of the constitutional relationship between the Crown Agents and the Government in the last few months of 1970 when I was in my present post, in which the right hon. Gentleman succeeded me. He is right to say that I chided him from time to time in the House, as did one or two of my hon. Friends. We then had the Stevenson Report, which the right hon. Gentleman refused to publish. I think it is fair to say that this Government have done their best to come to grips with a situation in which that was greatly needed.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's second point, the inquiry will be conducted by Judge Fay, Sir Edmund Compton and an accountant yet to he named. I am sorry that I cannot give the name of the accountant today. We have no reason to suppose that any information requested will not be forthcoming. I am certain, though this is a matter for the inquiry itself, that it will wish to have discussions with all those who have been involved in Crown Agents' matters over the past few years.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on the speedy clean-up job she has done over the past 10 months or so? Will she answer these questions? First, while the inquiry is being conducted, and indeed from now on, can we be sure that the annual reports produced by the Crown Agents will give very full information about the holdings they have, whether directly or indirectly, and the companies with which they have commercial association?
Secondly, am I right in assuming that if the Crown Agents draw upon any part of the £85 million standby cover they will be answerable to the Public Accounts Committee but that they will not be answerable to the Public Accounts Committee otherwise?

Mrs. Hart: I confirm that what my hon. Friend said in the last part of his question is indeed so. I hope and believe that it will not prove necessary to draw on the £85 million. Indeed, it is very gratifying to be able to say that this has not needed to be drawn on up to


now. I hope that that situation will continue. However, should there be drawings, this would be a matter in which the accounting officer of my Department would hold responsibility and it would be a matter for the Public Accounts Committee.
On my hon. Friend's first point, he will know that as from now—I think I have given this information before, and certainly the Crown Agents have —the annual report of the Crown Agents is now, as distinct from past practice, to be submitted to me so that I may make it available to Parliament, and the accounts will similarly be made available to Parliament. The audited accounts for the last possible year —1972—are already in the Library. I think my hon. Friend will find that they give the kind of information that is needed, but I am certain that if this proves not to be the case the Crown Agents or myself would be very responsive to any discussion about what further information they might include.

Mr. Hordern: May I echo the confidence in Mr. Cuckney and the efforts that he has so far made? With respect to the inquiry which is about to take place, may we take it that the findings in the Coopers and Lybrand report are temporary findings and are liable to the fullest possible justification by the full judicial inquiry which is to take place later?
On that point, will the right hon. Lady not only allow that inquiry to make the fullest inquiries into all the matters which have occurred in the past but allow Sir Claude Hayes, in giving his evidence, to see the findings which that judicial inquiry may make, unlike the practice in the past in Department of Trade investigations, and allow him to comment on any findings that the inquiry makes before those findings are published?

Mrs. Hart: Obviously, the detailed conduct of the inquiry must be a matter for Judge Fay, who will be leading it, and for the other members of the inquiry. It never has been the practice in the past for a Government, having set up an inquiry, to regulate the precise way in which the inquiry is to be conducted, but I am certain that the inquiry will wish to give every opportunity to all concerned fully to be acquainted with the whole

situation and to say whatever they want to say. I think that is much the fairest way of conducting it.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend agree that one of the important reasons why it has been her duty to tell the House, not only on this occasion but on others, too, of the scandalous investments and so on within the area of the Crown Agents is that the Crown Agents wanted the highest rate of return, and that usually in this system of ours the highest rate of return can involve investments within the murky and seamy side of life; and the net result was that, like a good many other people who got their fingers burned, they poured their money into property speculation and, indeed, into slum speculation?
Will my right hon. Friend in future insist that investments are of a kind which will not leave her as a Minister to have to come to the House, as the previous Minister did, in order to try to explain away how these investments have been made?
Will my right hon. Friend also see to it that the committee of inquiry will establish quite clearly how much money has been lost as a result of all these investments in these areas of secondary banking, with a particular reference to the amount of money that was lost as a result of the investment in the ill-fated Storehouse venture? All these matters should be investigated by the committee of inquiry.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that today at Question Time, when Scottish Questions were answered, questions which were much shorter in duration than the one which we have just heard were interrupted by your good self as being too long? Can you explain why it is that the hon. Member who has just asked a supplementary question seems to be allowed to ask as long a question as he likes?

Mr. Speaker: I will try to make the position clear. At Question Time the object is to get as many Questions answered as possible. Long supplementary questions cut out other Members' supplementary questions and Questions. After statements, the considerations are not quite the same. It is a matter for


my discretion, although I admit I do not often have to complain of excessive brevity on the part of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Perhaps the right hon. Lady will now answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend is right in pointing to the fact, which I outlined in my earlier statement in December, that it was the over-investment in property companies and secondary banking, in which there had been a considerable decline in the value of assets, which led to the immediate crisis of liquidity in the Crown Agents. I have given a positive directive that this is now to diminish, and the Crown Agents are now very sensibly withdrawing in a phased way—because it is correct to phase it—from both secondary banking and properties. Since October over £59 million has been withdrawn from property and secondary banking by the Crown Agents.
On the second point about London Capital, I think I made it clear a month or two ago that this is a matter for the commercial judgment of the Crown Agents and that they are acting entirely in accordance with their best and most prudent judgment in this matter. It is not strictly a matter in which I would regard it as proper for me to intervene.

Mr. Stanbrook: Does not the experience of the Crown Agents confirm the folly of any Government or quasi-Government institution using its assets to operate in fields in which it has neither qualifications nor suitability?

Mrs. Hart: What emerges clearly—and I hope we have now corrected the situation—is that if we have a valuable Government institution, which the Crown Agents is—it has the most tremendous ramifications and involvement and an excellent reputation for its procurement policies and all its other activities on behalf of many overseas investments and overseas public corporations—it is of the greatest importance that we have people who are best able to make the right kind of judgments in the operations in which they are involved. I think my own appointments since July have created a board with the expertise and judgment to enable these matters to be correctly administered from now on.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,
That the draft Recreation (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Indonesia) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Ordered,
That the Input Tax (Exceptions) (No. 1) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 624) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

POLICE (AMENDMENT)

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for remedies and complaints against the police.
The Bill will amend Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 which deals with complaints against the police. At the moment, as the House will know, complaints against police officers are investigated by officers from another force. This I believe to be totally unsatisfactory.
My Bill seeks to provide for the introduction of an independent element into the procedure for handling complaints against the police. It is my view—and, indeed, it is a view supported by the present Home Secretary—that an effective and independent element able to command the confidence of the public and the police must be brought into operation while a complaint is being investigated.
I would not regard it as satisfactory to institute merely ex post facto investigations, as many individuals and organisations have advocated. able to act only after the event, in a sense as a form of inquest. What is proposed, therefore, is the establishment of independent statutory commissions in each police authority, with members appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who shall be full- or part-time depending upon the experience of the volume of work in their area.
The procedure for handling a complaint is envisaged as follows. A complaint made by a member of the public


shall be made in writing through the clerk of the commission in the area in which the subject matter of the allegation first arose. No complaint shall be accepted without the consent of the chairman of the commission if more than six months have elapsed from the date of the incident forming the basis of the complaint.
The clerk to the commission shall refer the complaint to a single member of the commission who shall decide whether it raises matters of a substantial nature. If it does not raise matters of a substantial nature, it will be considered by a single member of the commission. He will be required to give a reasoned decision on the complaint and may recommend to the commission that a complaint be rejected if it is regarded as trivial or malicious.
There shall be no appeal against the decision of the commission. If, however, an individual member of the commission does not so recommend, he shall be required to investigate the complaint, conduct the investigation without a hearing, but, before making an adjudication, provide an opportuniy to the complainant to decide whether or not he is satisfied with the explanation given.
Should either party to the complaint not be satisfied with that adjudication there will be a right of review by the commission, provided that the chairman of the commission grants leave for such a review. If, on the other hand, the individual member whose responsibility in effect is to sieve complaints is satisfied that the complaint raises a matter of a substantial nature, he will refer it as a matter of course to the commission.
The commission shall then be required to furnish the letter of complaint to the police officer complained of and to his chief officer. The commission will be required to determine whether the complaint is substantiated and to give a reasoned decision.
Both the commission and an individual member shall have power to call witnesses and documents and will hold hearings in public. In extraordinary circumstances they may hold them in camera at the request of either party, and subject again to the consent of the chairman of the local commission. Both the complainant and the police officer against whom the

complaint is made shall be entitled to legal representation.
Should a complainant reveal prima facie evidence of a criminal act, the commission will not continue its investigation but will refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
This is a somewhat sketchy outline, setting out the guidelines and, more importantly, the principles behind the Bill. Other matters will, I hope, be filled in on Second Reading.
I should make it clear that neither the Bill nor anything that I have said is intended in any way to cast aspersions on the police or upon individual officers. It is no part of my purpose to cast a slur on the integrity of the vast majority of police officers. With the exceptions that exist in any occupation, I believe the police to be generally honest and conscientious.
At the same time, however, a situation such as now exists, in which the police are prosecutor, judge and jury of complaints against themselves, is clearly unsatisfactory. While it is supposed to be the case that police officers do not investigate complaints against other officers who are known to them, this is not always followed in practice. For example, a Sunday Times article of 13th April quoted a police officer in the Metropolitan Police A.10 squad, which is the Anti-Fraud and Serious Crime Squad, as saying
I worked on a case where I had known the officer in the CID for 20 years. I knew his wife and his kids. Nine of us were on that case and seven knew him well.
That is clearly unsatisfactory. While I do not suggest that justice was not done in that case, it certainly does not inspire confidence in the fairness and in the impartiality of the present complaints procedure. Few of my constituents who have had cause in the past year to complain to me about various activities of the police are satisfied that the procedure as it now exists adequately, impartially and fairly deals with their complaints. I accept, because I have no evidence to the contrary, that justice is done. However, it is manifestly not seen to be done.
It is my conviction that by introducing an independent element into the complaints procedure we shall restore public confidence in the police, rather than weaken it. For this reason I believe that


the police would welcome the Bill. It will further eliminate the spread of false and malicious rumours of police malpractice, by providing an acceptable mechanism through which they can be substantiated or quashed.
It will provide an additional means of public scrutiny over police activity and, in so doing, ensure that the police continue to maintain the highest possible standards of conduct. It is accepted that we have complaints procedures in many other areas. We have a Parliamentary Commissioner for complaints against the central Government, local government ombudsmen, and local tribunals for appeals against decisions, malpractice or maladministration of social security officers. Yet, in this one important area, where enormous and widespread power is exerted by a public authority, there is no public accountability for their actions. This is a serious anomaly and should be quickly remedied.
In conclusion, I can only echo in my support the words of the Metropolitan Police Commission, Sir Robert Mark, when he said in an interview reported in the Observer Review on 23rd March:
I believe that in a free society a small unarmed police force with limited legal powers depends for its effectiveness on public accept-

ance. That acceptance depends on integrity, which in turn depends on quality of manpower, supervision and accountability. The more open and accountable the police are, the more likely they are to be respected and supported.
I believe that that sums up the case for the implementation of an independent element for investigating complaints against the police. The reputation of the police force is only likely to be enhanced by the introduction of the Bill. I believe that this proposal will elicit the support of people throughout the country and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Neville Sandelson, Mr. J. W. Rooker, Mr. Phillip Whitehead, Mr. Brian Sedgmore, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Christopher Price, Mr. Tom Litterick and Mrs. Audrey Wise.

POLICE (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for remedies and complaints against the police: and the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9th May and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

Orders of the Day — REFERENDUM BILL

Considered in Committee Progress, 22nd April].

[Mr. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]

Clause 2

CONDUCT OF REFERENDUM

3.58 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 2, line 13, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:

'(1) The following powers, duties and functions shall be exercised by every person who in a parliamentary election would be a returning officer, namely—

(a) all those powers, duties and functions which would be exercised by a returning officer in a parliamentary election in order to record and count the votes cast in his constituency;
(b) the duty to record and count the votes cast in his constituency and publicly to announce for his constituency the number of ballot papers counted and the number of respective answers given by valid votes;
(c) the duty to inform a person (in this Act referred to as the Counting Officer) nominated by the Secretary of State, of the number of ballot papers counted within his constituency and the number of respective answers given by valid votes within his constituency.

(2) The national counting of votes at the referendum shall be conducted by the Counting Officer, who shall certify

(a) the number of ballot papers counted nationally
(b) the number of respective answers given nationally by valid votes.'

The Chairman: With this amendment we shall take the following amendments:

No. 106, in page 2, line 17, leave out from 'who' to end of line 23 and insert: sert:
'appropriate returning officers at a parliamentary election '.

No. 107, in page 2, line 24, leave out from 'who' to end of line 27 and insert:
'are the appropriate returning officers at a parliamentary election'.

No. 108, in page 2, line 28, leave out from the first 'the' to end of line 32 and insert:

'are the appropriate returning officers at a parliamentary election'.

No. 109, in page 2, line 33, leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4).

No. 40, in page 2, line 33, leave out from 'be' to end of line 35 and insert:
'undertaken on a constituency basis as for a Parliamentary Election, conducted by the returning officers in subsection (1) above, and the result shall be publicly declared for each constituency as at a Parliamentary Election'.

No. 41, in page 2, leave out lines 34 to 42, and add:
'in the same manner as in a normal General Election'.

No. 42, in page 2, line 34, leave out from 'by' to end of line 35 and insert:
'the persons respectively designated in subsection (1) above to carry out the functions of returning officers.
(2A) Each person so designated shall certify and publish the total number of ballot papers counted and the respective answers given by valid votes and shall make a return of such information to a person (in this Act referred to as the Counting Officer) nominated by the Secretary of State'.

No. 43, in page 2, line 34, leave out 'a person' and insert 'persons'.

No. 44, in page 2, line 34, leave out 'the Counting Officer' and insert 'Counting Officers'.

No. 110, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
'(2A) There shall be a Counting Officer for each of the areas specified in Schedule (Areas for which Counting Officers shall be nominated) to this Act. The Counting Officer for an area may appoint Deputy Counting Officers to discharge his responsibilities at the referendum in different parts of the area for which he is Counting Officer, provided that the number of persons entitled to vote in the referendum in any such part of the area is not less than 200,000. There shall also be a Counting Officer to conduct the counting of votes cast in accordance with any special provision made in pursuance of section 1(4A) of this Act'.

No. 111, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'The Counting Officer shall certify' and insert
'Every Counting Officer and Deputy Counting Officer shall certify, with respect to the votes the counting of which he is nominated or appointed to conduct,'.

No. 47, in page 2, line 36, after 'certify', insert for each parliamentary constituency'.

No. 48, in page 2, line 38, at end insert
'in the whole of the United Kingdom and in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively'.

No. 49, in page 2, line 38, at end insert
'and shall also certify for each total what number represents voting in accordance with any special provision made in pursuance of section 1(4A) of this Act and what numbers of the remainder represent respectively voting in each of the following areas, that is to say—

(i) in England and Wales, Greater London. each county and the Isles of Scilly
(ii) in Scotland, each region and each islands area; and
(iii) in Northern Ireland.'.

Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 49, at end add 'each parliamentary constituency'.

No. 51, in page 2, line 39, leave out 'the Counting Officer' and insert 'Counting Officers'.

No. 52, in page 2, line 40, leave out 'him' and insert 'them'.

No. 67, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'the Counting Officer' and insert
'Counting Officers and Deputy Counting Officers'.

New Schedule,
'AREAS FOR WHICH COUNTING OFFICERS SHALL BE NOMINATED'

and New Clause 2,
Conduct of Referendum"

Mr. Steel: In the course of the debate yesterday various Ministers repeatedly argued that in conducting the referendum they wished to follow normal election procedure as far as possible.
In moving the amendment I submit that, as the Bill stands at present, to have a national, centralised count is a big departure from normal election procedure which is undesirable, for the following reasons. First, it is an extremly cumbersome procedure. The Lord President has not yet told us how the count will be conducted. I hope that he, or whoever will reply to the series of amendments, will be more forthcoming than hitherto. Presumably arrangements must be made for the ballot boxes to be brought to Earls Court from polling stations throughout the United Kingdom, and for the votes to be piled high and counted. The mind boggles at such an exercise, but no doubt plans have been made for it to be done, and we should like to hear about them. It will be a cumbersome process, and it must be expensive. The Committee is entitled to know how much of the £9

million cost is earmarked for this proposed method of count.
4.0 p.m.
There are two other disadvantages in the national count. One is the inevitable delay of three or four days between the voters going to the poll and the results being announced. That is undesirable, because it creates a period of uncertainty. What plans have the Government to make sure that in a count over such a long period, unprecedented in this country, there will be no leaks of how the count is going? I find it impossible to imagine that leaks can be prevented. All of us who have experience of local government or parliamentary election counts know how difficult it is to prevent a leak from even a local count over a very few hours. Therefore, how shall we prevent speculation on a large scale about the result during the three days and nights of counting?
We have before us a whole series of amendments from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee which propose an alternative to what I regard as an unsatisfactory procedure. My amendment, which is simple, although it is long, is that the count be conducted at a constituency level. I accept that there are differing views on this. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I intend to press the amendment to a Division, but if it is defeated we shall support Amendment No. 49, which the hon. Member for Belner (Mr. MacFarquhar) will no doubt move in due course.
The case for a constituency count is on balance the stronger of the two. First, one is using the normal local expertise in counting, the normal returning officers and the normal machinery, which is fresh in everyone's minds, as it was used twice within the past year.
Secondly, there is an argument which bears on the referendum campaign. I am not the most enthusiastic supporter of the referendum, but, as it is to be held, there is an obligation on us all, on whichever side of the battle, to do everything possible to make sure that there is the largest possible turnout and the greatest amount of enthusiasm in the campaign. Are we more likely to generate that enthusiasm throughout the country if the counting is done on a national basis or if it is done on a local basis? I believe that it will give more people on both sides


of the argument more incentive to involve themselves in the campaign if they know that their work will be realisable by their being able to see the result in their own communities. That is a powerful argument for using the normal machinery and having the count on a constituency basis. There should then be a marginally higher turnout and greater interest in the campaign than if everybody's results and efforts are swallowed up in one massive result counted at Earls Court.
Two objections have been raised to what I have proposed. The first is that a constituency count is liable to bring what some people would regard as undue pressure on the Member of Parliament in his constituency. That argument applies whether the Member is pro-Market or anti-Market. It is a constitutional point with which I have some sympathy. But it has been thrown out of the window by the holding of the referendum. Once we have decided to go through with the exercise, it does not hold much water then to say "One thing you must not do is to allow any Member of Parliament to know his constituency's thinking on the subject." There is no logic in that argument.
The second argument against a constituency count is that the referendum might be used by those who want to take advantage of it for separatist purposes within the United Kingdom. We must face up to this. In my view, the referendum will be used for separatist purposes anyway, whether the vote is local or on a United Kingdom basis. I see no reason why different parts of the United Kingdom should not be able to add up their total votes to see, as a matter of genuine public interest, what opinion has been in Scotland or Wales, or, for that matter, London, Yorkshire or any other part of the United Kingdom.
For a long time Wales, for example, returned Labour representation overwhelmingly, with an overwhelming Labour vote, during periods of Conservative Government in the United Kingdom as a whole. That may have created political difficulties for the Government of the day, but it certainly did not create constitutional difficulties. I see no reason why we should not accept that different parts of the United Kingdom, including different cities and towns, may vote in

different directions. But we all know that the decision can be taken only on the one basis of British membership of the Community.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is better for all of us in all parties to deal with facts rather than myths, which would certainly grow up after a national count?

Mr. Steel: Yes, Sir. As I have said, the arguments of the separatists will be used during the referendum anyway. I take my hon. Friend's point, that if we try to conceal the differing opinions myths will grow up about people's real reactions. The public opinion polls will assume greater authority than the referendum, which is something to be avoided at all costs.
Some people may be frightened about a possible difference in the result in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. but I am not. It might happen, but so what? If we pass Amendment No. 36 or Amendment No. 49, and have the count on a constituency, county or regional basis, there are bound to be variations within each of those countries as well. For example, Glasgow may vote "No" in total in a local count and Edinburgh "Yes". I take that just as an example, and do not suggest that that will be the outcome. Such a result would not be a strong argument for Scottish self-government.
We should not be frightened. It is a mistake to argue for a United Kingdom count on that kind of basis. As a Parliament, we should face up to the facts and the fullest possible expression of local and community opinion on the matter. To generate as much interest as possible in the referendum, we should amend the Bill so that we have a local count instead of the cumbersome procedure suggested by the Government.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 106, 107, 108 and 109.

The Chairman: Order. An amendment has already been moved. Only one amendment may be moved at a time, but the amendments in the group may be discussed together.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg your pardon, Mr. Thomas.
I support what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said in moving the amendment, which directs the attention of the Committee towards a constituency count and a constituency declaration.
The referendum is a constitutional innovation which I believe we could well do without. But while we are having such an innovation it is our duty to try to make its execution as simple and straightforward as possible. By its very nature, the referendum is a device which allows the Government to duck the issue and pass the buck because of indecision and political inadequacy within the ranks of the Labour Party. Anyone who has helped to run a golf club or a bingo club will know that it is usually a big mistake to change the rules because of an immediate or specific problem, a temporary situation, as a hasty changing of the rules—

The Chairman: Order. I do not want to change the rules either. I let the hon. Gentleman make his point because I thought he was going to be brief, but he must now discuss how the count is to be undertaken.

Mr. Fletcher: The point I was making was that the changing of the rules concerns the way in which the people will be asked to vote and how the system will be applied to the vote, the count and the declaration. The Bill in general and Clause 2 in particular challenge the credibility of parliamentary government. It is necessary to make clear that Parliament alone will decide whether or not Britain remains a member of the EEC, and Parliament alone will decide whether or not to approve legislation which might lead to a British withdrawal from the Community. It is vital that the British public should be aware of those points before they cast their votes in the referendum.
The traditional and unique relationship which exists between hon. Members and their constituents is at stake in the referendum, and it is that relationship which has prompted the amendments which aim at bringing about a constituency count and a constituency declaration. I think that if the Committee accepts the traditional and, from the point of view of our constitution, paramount view that

hon. Members owe their constituents their judgment as representatives and not as delegates, it therefore follows that the constituents owe hon. Members their opinion when those opinions are canvassed by a referendum of this kind.
This is an electoral contract which is exclusive to each hon. Member and his or her constituents. No such special relationship exists between the electorate and the Prime Minister or the Government of the day. In other words, if my constituents are to be asked to express their views on Britain's membership of the Common Market I want to know their opinion. I believe that I have a prior right as the Member of Parliament for that constituency to know that opinion before and above anyone else.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Is the hon. Member saying that he will take no notice of the referendum if the result is the opposite to the one he wants?

Mr. Fletcher: I thought that I had made the point that a Member of Parliament owes his constituents his judgment—

Mr. Flannery: Answer the question.

Mr. Fletcher: —but in so doing there is nothing wrong in the Member knowing the opinion of his constituents before that judgment is exercised. The specific answer to the question is that I would take the views of my constituents into account as any hon. Member would on any subject, but, having taken them into account, I would still exercise my judgment on the issue. It may be that I would not vote in the way that the majority of my constituents would wish, and that is what distinguishes a representative from a delegate. At least, however, I should know the views of my constituents on this matter if the referendum were conducted according to the normal methods of voting and counting votes in Britain.
I believe that any other method of assessing the result will damage further our constitutional propriety. In all the ghastly circumstances surrounding this referendum it is no credit to Parliament that, faced with this ill-conceived constitutional device, hon. Members should decline to know the views of their constituents.
4.15 p.m.
Various methods have been suggested to save hon. Members the embarrassment of knowing what their constituents may think when the result of the referendum is known—

Mr. Ron Thomas: You will be embarrassed.

Mr. Fletcher: That would be my problem, not the hon. Member's. I am prepared to face up to my problem, if it is a problem, which is more than can be said for most Labour Members.
I think that the most absurd aspect of the referendum is the national count. There is no precedent for it, and it fills me with horror at the prospect of what might go wrong—from the possibility of a student prank as thousands of ballot boxes trundle towards London, to the prospect of a recount. I am told that the figure being canvassed for those willing to count at Earls Court is about £45 a day. What if there are two or three recounts? [Interruption.] If it is not £45 a day I hope that the Lord President will say how much it will cost to have the votes counted. How many recounts has he allowed for in his calculations in trying to give the Committee some idea of the cost of the operation?
Another possibility is some kind of local authority count, which again ignores Parliament and the relationship between Members of Parliament and their constituents. I cannot see any conceivable ground for this method of counting, which is another way of saving hon. Members embarrassment, which is another dodge and another trick on the constitution as we know it.
Bearing all these points in mind, I am sure that in considering the count and in considering his relationship with his constituents every hon. Member in his heart will want to know the opinion of those who elected him to this House. I am sure that no hon. Member would want to do anything which would damage that unique relationship each of us has with our constituents.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: The hon. Members for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) have both devoted some of their remarks to reasons for opposing a central count. On Second Reading all

my remarks were along the same lines, indicating why I am also against the proposal.
I shall not deploy again all the arguments used on that occasion, but, briefly, they fall into two general groups. One group deals with all the practical difficulties of a central count, with the very cumbersome operation involved in bringing together 50,000 ballot boxes, with them taking up so much space at the one central location and then having to be returned afterwards to the different parts of the country from which they came. That is an operation which will take time and manpower and will cost an estimated extra £2 million.
A further reason which has since come to my notice and which gives grounds for opposing the central count is that it imposes more rigidity on the timetable of the whole operation. It would appear that Earls Court is to be available on 5th June but not on 12th June. Later on in June there are difficulties again because the people who run Earls Court will be getting it ready for the Royal Tournament, which takes place at the beginning of July. If there are 50,000 ballot boxes lying around at Earls Court for too long they may be blasted to smithereens by the Royal Artillery.
The second group of arguments which counts against the idea of having a central count relates to the fact that in political terms it is quite unnecessary to have such a count. In fact, no other country which holds referenda has a central count. There is no harm in certain areas of the country knowing that they have supported the minority viewpoint. I believe that a central count will take away local interest in the referendum and may discourage many people from voting.
In this debate we are to consider the various alternative methods to the proposal to have a central count. The hon. Members for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and Edinburgh, North favour the proposition of having counts by parliamentary constituency. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles said, I find that that proposal raises many administrative difficulties. Since local government reorganisation took place in England and Wales last year—similar reorganisation will take


place in Scotland during the next month—the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies have in many cases cut across the boundaries of local authorities. If the local administration of the count is to be organised by local registration officers and electoral returning officers for local authorities it will be more difficult in many cases to organise counting on a parliamentary constituency basis.
I put my constituency before the Committee as an example. It is a fact that the Goole parliamentary division now falls in no fewer than four counties. Four electoral registration officers have responsibility for different parts of my constituency. During the General Election last October we found that the mammoth operation of conducting the count and getting all the ballot boxes together in such a far-flung constituency with so many different registration areas imposed additional difficulties.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Gentleman's constituency may fall within different counties—in fact, my constituency covers three counties—but that is not the main point. Surely he had a satisfactory count in October 1974. Experience has already been gathered in the hon. Gentleman's constituency which has not been gathered nationally.

Dr. Marshall: I could describe at great length some of the difficulties that we encountered in that campaign. I could also describe some of the difficulties which arise because of a parliamentary constituency having so many strange boundaries. Whereas the constituency of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles neatly coincides with three of the old counties of Scotland, my constituency does not coincide with any local government boundaries apart from parish boundaries. In some of the towns even those boundaries are a little curious. Of course, my constituency is by no means unique in this respect. In many different parts of the kingdom there are constituencies which cut across local government boundaries

Mr. Walter Clegg: Will the hon. Gentleman say what would happen if there were to be a by-election in his constituency next month?

Dr. Marshall: A writ would be issued and in due course a campaign would be held. A count would be held in the same way as last October. However, I am now considering the referendum and contemplating whether we can make better arrangements than those I experienced in the constituency which I fought and won last October.
Another reason for a parliamentary constituency-based count presenting difficulties is that the whole purpose of the referendum is to seek the views of the British people outside Parliament, independently of Parliament, without reference to Parliament and in no way connected with the processes of Parliament. If the results are to be made known on the basis of parliamentary constituencies it is inevitable that Parliament and hon. Members will be involved. Some hon. Members may think that that is a good thing. So be it. But it does seem that the whole purpose of having the referendum is to go outside the parliamentary system. We shall not be able to achieve that if we have a parliamentary constituency-based count.
I look for different methods of having a local count. Obviously the units for such counting are now to be found with the new local government areas. In many parts of the country they provide units which are different from parliamentary constituencies. The difficulty which we have to surmount is that of determining which units of local government are the right units to adopt in order to have the most localised count in the referendum, without in any way giving the results in terms of parliamentary constituencies. By that I think it would be wrong for any parliamentary constituency to have the results given in the count. If we had a counting system whereby some hon. Members knew the results in their constituencies and others did not that would be the worst of all possible worlds. It has to be a system which covers all parliamentary constituencies or none at all.
In choosing the right local government units for a local count in the referendum we must first consider those units which now carry the responsibility for electoral registration. For example, there is a chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, one officer for the whole of the


Six Counties. In Scotland, after 16th May, the function of electoral registration will rest with the new regional authorities and with the island area authorities. As the regions are much larger than individual constituencies the choice of regions as the units in the referendum count will get round the difficulty of giving the results in terms of parliamentary constituencies.
I agree that there is a difficulty regarding the island areas. If we were to have the count in Scotland by regions and islands we would give the results for two parliamentary constituencies in Scotland —namely, the constituencies of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). In the amendment with which my name is associated those two island areas are coupled with the Highland area.
I now turn to England and Wales. The function of electoral registration rests with the new districts. If we were to have counting by district in England and Wales we would be able to deduce the results for no fewer than 74 English parliamentary constituencies, including the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Price), and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel). Similarly, in Wales there would be five constituencies where the results would be given if we had a count at district level.
4.30 p.m.
For England and Wales the natural unit to choose for local counting is the county. There is only one difficulty, which is that the Isle of Wight, which is a county, is also a parliamentary constituency. In the group of amendments which I support the Isle of Wight is deliberately grouped with the county of Hampshire for counting purposes. There are two sets of amendments on the Order Paper which choose the county as the basic unit for a count. The first set comprises Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 110, 111, 51, 52 and 98. Amendment No. 98 is a new schedule which gives the 63 basic areas throughout the country. Amendment No. 49 puts forward an alternative solution. All these amendments choose the same basic units as I have described.
There are, however, important differences. In the first place there is difficulty about the islands I have mentioned. Amendment No. 49 would give the results in terms of the three island constituencies to which reference has been made. It would allow the possibility, in practical terms of all the votes—although the results would be made known for local areas—being counted centrally. I suspect that if Amendment No. 49 is the one that is carried, the way in which it will be implemented will be by having all the votes brought to one central place but having the results declared separately for the areas mentioned in the amendment. This would involve all the expense and absurd inconvenience of the central count but there would still be local results.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is another complication which arises in my constituency, which is the only one in England that crosses county boundaries? I am in two counties. One part of my constituency might contribute to a "No" vote while the other part might contribute to a "Yes" vote.

Dr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Committee. If he had been here earlier he would have heard me say that my constituency overlaps four counties, so that it is twice as good as his in that respect.
The other difference between Amendment No. 49 and those to which I have attached my name is that the latter have built into them a further refinement depending on local cicumstances. This can be seen by looking carefully at Amendment No. 98, which specifies the 63 basic county areas. The clause which would give rise to that amendment has the wording now shown in Amendment No. 110, which would enable the counting officers for the areas shown in the new schedule at their discretion to split up their areas for the purposes of the count but to do so in such a way that no sub-divided unit would have an electorate of fewer than 200,000. There would not be the possibility of the results being known in terms of parliamentary constituencies.
This provision for sub-division of the county areas would be particularly applicable in the more heavily populated areas


and would overcome some of the practical difficulties of having counts involving 500,000 votes or more. I think particularly of Greater London and the metropolitan counties of England, the Strathclyde Region of Scotland and also perhaps Northern Ireland.
If we take the electorate for each of the areas specified in the new schedule it is interesting to see how the possibility of sub-division with the individual units having electorates of not fewer than 200,000 can be worked out in practice. The amendments I support are considerably different from Amendment No. 49. Those amendments which have my support are the best solution to the problem of finding the right local counting areas.
My difficulty is that in your wisdom, Mr. Thomas, you have decided not to have a separate Division on Amendment No. 43. In that situation I am forced to fall back on a second-best solution. If the Committee does not accept the amendments which I have tabled I shall support Amendment No. 49.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Amidst all the welter of argument and counter-argument about the appropriate counting unit for the referendum there is one consideration which in my mind stands out above all the others. It is that whether we like it or not every effort will be made to ascertain what was the result of the referendum locally as well as generally. I deliberately use the word "locally" as the most general term because presently one has to consider what is the most convenient local sub-division for the purpose. But that there will be widespread and justified curiosity to know what is the distribution within the United Kingdom as a whole of opinion on this subject cannot be denied.
Any attempt to prevent that distribution from becoming known would be frustrated. The result of that, if it were done by counts at various polling stations, if it were done by public opinion polls or would certainly be to create a confusion of assertion and counter-assertion and to discredit in part the machinery which, however reluctantly, this Committee is setting up. On behalf of myself and my colleagues I would rule out as the least eligible alternative one national

count accompanied by a sturdy refusal to supply any other information.

Mr. Douglas Hurd (Mid-Oxon): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of all opinion counts the ones which of recent years have been shown to be most erroneous and are, therefore, the most discredited are those which consist of asking people after they have voted how they have voted?

Mr. Powell: Whether that is true or not, and certainly some very weird results are obtained at General Elections from opinion polls, even those in close proximity to the voting, what the hon. Member has pointed out strengthens my objections to a system whereby we would suffer the bombardment of assertions which no one could afterwards check. If we are setting up a machinery, let it be such as will provide the public with the information which, whether we like it or not, it will want.
Having excluded that possibility, I come to consider which of the lesser areas of counting is most eligible. My colleagues and I would wish to reject the proposition of counting by the countries, or whatever name is chosen, of the United Kingdom. There may be some hon. Members who would wish to see those parts of the United Kingdom as separately treated as possible. That is not the case with my colleagues and me, who represent a part of the United Kingdom which is passionately determined to remain what it officially is at the moment, an integral part of the United Kingdom. Nor do I believe that it would be satisfactory if England was treated as a single unit for the purpose of the count, for many of the considerations which would lead the public to wish to have more information about local variations would not be satisfied by a figure which applied to England as a whole.
We are left with the alternative between a constituency count on the one hand and, on the other hand, a count in larger areas than constituencies but still areas which are smaller than the component parts of the United Kingdom.
I take seriously the objections to a count by constituencies. I see no point in denying that there is a certain contradiction between the device of the referendum and the normal responsibilities of a


Member of Parliament. However, whatever contradiction there is between a referendum and the responsibilities of hon. Members of the House of Commons as a whole, that contradiction is rendered most painful and most obtrusive if the count is conducted by constituencies, for then we deliberately focus attention upon the local balance of opinion in a constituency on this subject and the manner in which, in his own judgment, or for whatever other reasons, the hon. Member representing it has conducted himself. Therefore, it would be a mistake for Parliament to settle, in this context, for counting by constituency.
I cannot follow the argument, although I accept the principle in general, and indeed, reinforced it in yesterday's debate, that we should, so far as possible, use normal electoral machinery, that that principle applies to the decision whether the count should be by constituencies or by some combination of constituencies or electoral areas. I am, therefore, brought to the conclusion that the most eligible choice is to count by areas which are substantially larger than the normal constituency and which, although they will give a reasonable picture of the local spread and balance of opinion on this subject, will avoid pushing to the extreme the conflict between parliamentary representation and the sounding of opinion by referendum.
That is why my hon. Friends and I will vote against the amendment which is before the Committee at present, but will support that which will, in due course, be moved by the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar).
There is, however, one observation which I want to make with special reference to Northern Ireland upon the form of that amendment. Subparagraph (c) of that amendment proposes Northern Ireland as a whole as a counting area. I have already mentioned the reasons why that is regarded as objectionable and undesirable by the majority of those whom my colleagues and I represent.
Therefore, the question arises in Northern Ireland what would be the nearest approximation to what the hon. Member proposes for the rest of the United Kingdom? Unfortunately, given the layout of local government and electoral areas in Northern Ireland, the

county is not suitable for that purpose. After careful consideration, my colleagues and I have come to the conclusion that, exceptionally, in Northern Ireland the most appropriate area is nevertheless—there, and there only—the parliamentary constituency.—[Interruption.] If any hon. Member with knowledge of the circumstances and layout of Northern Ireland can propose a more convenient sub-division for the purpose in Northern Ire. land, I am sure we should be interested to hear it.
However, it so happens that in Northern Ireland the embarrassment and the conflict to which I have referred do not exist, for, to the best of my knowledge, on the one hand there is no hon. Member representing a constituency in Northern Ireland who is not opposed to British membership of the EEC and, on the other hand, on all indications there is no part of Northern Ireland where there is not a substantial majority of the public who are also opposed to British membership of the EEC.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Why bother?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Powell: The referendum is for the United Kingdom. Therefore, I shall support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Belper, but I shall propose that in respect of Northern Ireland, for electoral convenience applying in the special circumstances there, it should be amended in the manner I have proposed.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: I should like to speak to this amendment and to the amendment in my name which has been selected for separate Division, if requested. I shall be brief because many hon. Members have already spoken in this debate and on Second Reading and much has been covered already.
In the light of the fate of my two amendments last night, the Government may be alarmed to know that on the issue of the national count I agree with them in principle. This is a national issue and, theoretically, it would be a good idea to have a national count. I sympathise with the Government's desire to enhance national unity by avoiding publicising regional differences. Unfortunately like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I believe that a national count will have precisely the


opposite effect. It will exacerbate tensions within the country rather than relieve them. The reason is simple and well known. If there is a national count the Scottish National Party will for ever after claim that Scotland has been cheated, that Scotland is not being allowed to know that its people voted against staying in the Common Market. There will be rumours, suspicion, and, above all, precisely the bitterness that we want to avoid in the aftermath of the referendum.
Honesty is the best policy, and if the Scots, by a majority, vote that they want to leave the Common Market, let us not be afraid to face that fact. Let us face it squarely, whatever the implications may be for the politics of this country. My guess, which is admittedly only that of an emigré Scot, is that the Scots will show a majority in favour of staying in the Common Market. If they do, I hope that the SNP will digest that fact and face it squarely also.
Even if I am wrong, it is essential for us to face the implications of the Scottish vote. That is why I am proposing that the results of the count should be declared by regions and counted in the regions. However, in an attempt to strengthen the concept of national unity and the idea that this is ultimately a national count, I would suggest as a palliative that on referendum day, although the counting might be done regionally, all the results should be announced from London.
I cannot support the Liberal amendment for constituency declarations. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), who moved that amendment, stated that he believed that this was the natural way to do it and he dismissed the arguments against it. He dismissed the argument that hon. Members would be felt to be bound to the knowledge of the result in their constituencies, because he said that this was a referendum and so the normal rules regarding binding do not apply. He had failed to take into account a situation which could arise, which I and some other hon. Members mentioned on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) also raised it at Question Time. It is the

situation where there is a small turnout with a majority of, say, 21 per cent. over 19 per cent. I have suggested that in such a situation the Government should at least consider whether or not they could be bound by a referendum result of that kind. Even if the Government felt that they had to be bound by that smaller turnout and narrower result, many individual Members of Parliament may not feel that they would want to be bound by such a result.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Gentleman has not put correctly the point that I made. I simply said that the argument that Members of Parliament come under pressure has been given away by the holding of a referendum at all. Everything the hon. Gentleman has said about the possible marginality of votes applies nationally and locally in precisely the same way.

Mr. MacFarquhar: My position is that I should like the referendum to be binding in the sense that there would be no need for a subsequent parliamentary vote. That will not and cannot be the case. In those circumstances, if we are faced with a very low poll many individual Members of Parliament may feel that they will have to exercise their individual judgment. In that case it would be better to be unfettered than fettered.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I accept that it is rather moving away from the central point, but I ask my hon. Friend to reflect on this continual repetition of the suggestion that the poll will be low. This is helping to bring about the very result which he claims to fear. It is the function of everyone here to accept that we are committed here to the referendum and, secondly, to do what we can to maximise the vote in that referendum.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I am sure that if my hon. Friend were to come again to my constituency, as he has done in the past, he would have no doubts about the efforts that I and others will be making to ensure a 100 per cent. turnout in the Belper division—and a 100 per cent. vote in favour of the Government's recommendation for staying in the Common Market. I certainly intend to try to ensure a high turnout. I agree with my hon. Friend in that I think that there will be a high turnout. I certainly hope


so. However, we are here framing legislation and we must take account of possibilities in what the Government admitted last night was in many respects a leap in the dark. My hon. Friend does not support a count at constituency level anyway. He supports the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) and is not in favour of a constituency count. He is disagreeing, therefore, on something totally irrelevant to the amendment.
I would also argue against the Liberal amendment that by having a constituency count one could quite easily have a situation in a low poll where one would have what in effect would be a referendum by constituencies rather than by the country as a whole.
The right hon. Member for Down, South, with whom I agreed earlier on one point, suggested an amendment in the case of Ulster based on the problems of having a count on the basis of counties. I am certainly in no position to argue with him about the practicability of declaring or counting by counties in Northern Ireland. I should have thought that this might have been a minor administrative difficulty among all the major difficulties we face in the whole business of this referendum. But, for the sake of argument, I am prepared to accept that the right hon. Gentleman is correct. He uses logic with equal brilliance on many sides of the argument. That logic could easily have been used equally to justify a count on the basis of Northern Ireland as a whole as it was on the basis of constituencies. It seems to me that he rejected very well the argument for having a constituency count elsewhere. I found that argument far more convincing than his subsequent argument to justify a constituency count in Northern Ireland only. It would be far better to face up to the facts—as the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do in the case of Scotland—in the case of Northern Ireland and to have the count by region.
The administrative arguments on the national count were perfectly well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole on Second Reading. Frankly, I believe that the Lord President could overcome the administrative difficulties. They are clearly administrative difficulties. That came through from our debates yesterday.

They played a great part in my right hon. Friend's decision on how to run this referendum. If he thinks that he can overcome these administrative difficulties, he probably can overcome them. However, on the ground of political prudence, it would be better to reject a national count and to have it on a regional basis.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I rise to support the amendment proposed by the lion. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). In doing so I make passing reference to an amendment in my name which seeks to arrive at the same result. Hon. Members will be aware that on Second Reading I spoke of the need to have a result that showed a Welsh total. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee may or may not agree with that objective. But on the particular issue of the need for a Welsh result, it is very difficult indeed to understand the argument that is put forward against that objective—that this could be used by nationalists in order to pull the United Kingdom apart.
Of course, it is our objective to have a fully self-governing Wales, as hon. Members are aware. But why should a result showing Welsh and Scottish totals separately from those of England help that? The implication of the argument is that Wales and Scotland may have a result that is different from that for England and that if the people of Wales and of Scotland knew that they had a different result they would want self-government.
Are we such great democrats in this House of Commons that we want to hide the knowledge from the people of Wales and Scotland that might take them on the course along which the information could lead? I find it an amazing argument. It is amazing that people are willing to advocate it.

Sir Raymond Gower: There seems to be fallacy in the hon. Gentleman's argument—namely, that because people in Scotland or Wales may vote for coming out of the Common Market they are signifying their support for breaking up the United Kingdom. Is it not conceivable that many people who might vote against the Common Market would be heartily in favour of remaining in the United Kingdom? Is not that whole argument based on a fallacy?


Even if Wales and Scotland voted differently from the United Kingdom, that would be no evidence that the people of Wales or Scotland wanted to break up the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman has underlined my point. The argument that if the result were declared on a Welsh and Scottish basis this would lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom is fallacious. Anyone who used that argument against having a separate Welsh and Scottish result would be misinterpreting the situation. The people of Wales and Scotland may or may not have the same result as the people in England or those in Northern Ireland. That remains to be seen. But they have at least the right to know where they stand, and I would defend that to the utmost.
However, in tabling my amendment and supporting the amendment we are now discussing, I take the argument further and argue this matter on a constituency basis. I believe that it is fundamental to our concept of democracy that the constituency is the basis of the power that we have as Members of Parliament in this Chamber. I appreciate that there may be some hon. Members who disagree with that view. But I wonder how they get their belief as to the source from which their power emanates. I should have thought that anyone who believes in representative parliamentary democracy could see that the power comes from the people. If we are to have a referendum—and this begs the question of whether a referendum is right or wrong on this issue or any other—and ask the people to give their views on this question, the very least we can do as their representatives is to know their voice and act on it. I go further. I should like this to have been binding on Members of Parliament. That is the only way by which we can avert a possible constitutional crisis, which was referred to in some speeches at the weekend.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: If the hon. Gentleman knew that the majority of his constituents were not in favour of indepen-

dence for Wales, would he act accordingly?

Mr. Wigley: My constituents have elected me to speak my beliefs. My party has often supported the call for a referendum on self-government for Wales. The Conservative Party opposed that. When that issue again arises I shall gladly debate it with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I look forward to an early opportunity.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman says that each Member of Parliament should vote in the House in the eventual legal decision according to how his constituents voted in the referendum. Has he faced the fact that that could result in a different outcome? A majority of constituencies could vote in favour, while the majority of the people voting in the referendum could vote against it.

Mr. Wigley: That is a valid point. That is the assumption on which this Chamber is based. The total votes cast in a General Election are not reflected in the majority party which is returned. The Prime Minister referred to the alternative yesterday at Question Time. He said that if a majority was in favour of pulling out of the EEC, that policy would be implemented in this Chamber. That leaves many more loopholes than a policy implying that hon. Members should follow the result in their constituencies. I accept the point. This is not absolutely watertight. However, it is more watertight than any of the other alternatives. This is necessary to reinforce the belief that our people have in democracy.
If we hold a referendum and ask the people to give their judgment on an issue, there is no mechanism in the House for putting that result into practice. If the result is tight we may find extreme difficulty in putting it into practice. We could find ourselves the laughing stock of these islands. It could represent a serious challenge to this Chamber.
A constituency count, even if it is not binding on Members of Parliament, at least puts sufficient moral pressure on hon. Members to follow the lead given in their constituencies. That would be an advantage. However, I should like to go


further and urge that the result be binding on hon. Members.
There are many practical arguments in favour of holding the count on a constituency basis. Those arguments were outlined in the Second Reading debate and I shall not repeat them. However, I emphasise that I shall regard my constituency result as binding on me. Failing a constituency result, I should accept the result on a Welsh basis as binding. According to my political beliefs, on no occasion would I accept a determination by the people of London or Birmingham of what is good for the future of Wales. I do not accept that as binding on myself. If there is no count on a Welsh basis—I would prefer a constituency count—I shall feel a considerable degree of pessimism towards the referendum process.

Mr. Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman advocates a policy of independence for Wales. However, he is supported by only 42 per cent. of the people who voted in his constituency. In other words, about 50-odd per cent. of those people are against the policy of independence for Wales. Does that mean to say that the hon. Gentleman will give up the policy which he has advocated?

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for again bringing up the argument of self-government for Wales. I welcome the platform, although I am not sure whether I accept the main theme of the hon. Gentleman's argument. How many hon. Members are returned by an overall majority? How many Government supporters were so returned? On what basis can the hon. Gentleman presume that the overall result of a General Election comes about because of one issue? A number of issues are put forward during an election and the voters see fit to support certain of them. Three out of four of the candidates standing in Welsh constituencies supported wider proposals for legislative devolution than those proposed by the Government, the Tory candidates being an exception.
Whether or not the result of this debate will allow a Welsh count, we shall assess the Welsh result. We shall ascertain what that result will be. We shall not take five days to announce that result. We shall know the result the next day. The people of Wales will have four days' advantage. That may be welcomed by the Govern-

ment. To avoid embarrassment, I suggest that the Government concede the principle of a constituency or a regional or Welsh count.

Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Hands-worth): I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said. I think that the arguments against a central count are overwhelming. Apart from the objections and resentment in the regions, because information will be suppressed, the task of the counting and scrutineering staff will be overwhelming.
I seem to have made a speciality of fighting marginal seats. I once had the doubtful distinction of being defeated by 10 votes out of 50,000 or 60,000, while knowing that the number of disputed ballot papers exceeded my opponent's majority over me. It seems ludicrous to expect millions of votes to be concentrated in one place, to be scrutinised and subjected to a long and protracted recount procedure. I do not know what a returning officer in a centralised situation such as this would regard as a reasonable margin for granting or not granting a recount. There will be a heavy responsibility upon such an officer if there is a substantial margin, bearing in mind that Parliament will regard this as a binding result.
We must also consider the security situation in these days when there are bomb scares in public buildings. The opportunities for disruption that a centralised count will give make my mind boggle at the security arrangements that will have to be made. Two or three bomb hoaxes could add two or three days to the length of the count. It may well be that a count lasting one week will cause difficulty. It may cause nervousness in the City. That is not of the greatest importance to the Government. However, such protracted problems may weaken the pound, and that would not help the Chancellor.
We must consider the alternatives. I am glad that the Liberal amendment has been chosen for consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) has put forward one suggestion. Though I prefer it to a centralised count and declaration I think that his regions idea, whilst it has certain advantages because the exercise will not be on such a gigantic scale, lacks the reassuring


familiarity provided by a constituency count.
We have all described this whole exercise as being unique, and so it is, but in such a situation one of the difficulties is sustaining interest in it. One way of maintaining interest—this is, no doubt, a marginal factor—is to conduct the referendum as nearly as possible on the lines of an ordinary General Election. It is to be expected that people will then have rather more interest engendered in them than otherwise.
I have given some thought to the further alternative of counting even by local authority wards—the smallest component unit electorally that we have. I suppose the only thing against that idea is that it would be so massive an exercise, from the point of view of the staff to be employed, that certain advantages in economy of scale would be gained by carrying out the referendum on a constituency basis.
I hope that hon. Members who are not present—one can hardly blame them as we had such a long and ragged procedure yesterday—will consider this matter. We on this side of the Committee have a free vote in these matters, though it probably would not make much difference to some of us if we did not. I hope that the Committee will come to the conclusion that it is right to have a vote by constituencies. If not, there will no doubt be a great deal of resentment.
I think that the hon. Member for Caernarvon was going too far when he said that the referendum ought to be absolutely binding on a Member, even if it goes against his conscience. That is something that we cannot visualise being enforced, but it would be wholly dishonourable for hon. Members to disregard it.
As my last argument in favour of a constituency count I turn to the situation of there being a vote in favour of withdrawal from the Market and certain hon. Members being minded to disregard or to renege upon it. If, in such a situation, a large number of constituencies—not necessarily a majority, though I suppose that would be likely—as well as the aggregate of votes were against membership of the Market, the pressure upon a

Member who could not accept the decision to resign his seat would be that much stronger. If hon. Members totally disregarded the decision and tried to bring the procedure into discredit, it would be reasonable for those in their constituencies, including members of their own parties, because this is a cross-party matter, to press them to resign. I should have thought that the only reasonable course for an hon. Member faced with that situation, rather than to follow the line indicated yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, would be to get out.
I hope that the Liberal amendment will be carried. If not, if we have to fall back on the regional arrangements, they will be very much a second best, but at any rate they will be better than the centralised arrangement proposed in the Bill. That is totally indefensible. I hope that before the debate is over my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will indicate that he, too, accepts the absurdity of the situation as it now is.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I, too, have an amendment down in this group which recommends that we should have a count on a constituency basis. Indeed, I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and others who have spoken in support of that proposal.
I particularly liked the argument adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who got near to discussing what is at the heart of this group of amendments. I am afraid that that has not been done by all speakers in the debate so far.
What is at the heart of this group of amendments is the relationship between an hon. Member and his constituency. I do not want this referendum. I oppose it in principle in every possible way that I can. However, that is not the subject for debate now. Granted that we are to have a referendum, the subject for debate is the future of the relationship between an hon. Member and his constituency whether we count nationally—that is, anonymously—or on a constituency basis —that is, with responsibility upon each hon. Member.
We must think beyond the date of the referendum to the time when the result


is known. Each one of us has to consider what to do in the light of that knowledge. This matter has been bandied across the Floor of the Committee in the question: will it be binding on the Conservative Party or the Labour Party?
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), in an outrageous statement, suggested that those who did not agree with him should in some way be drummed out of their seats—even by their own parties.

Mr. Clegg: Like Dick Taverne.

Mr. Ridley: That seems very far removed from the doctrine of the responsibility of an hon. Member to his constituents.
The fracas at the weekend, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw) discussed the question perfectly rationally, was greeted by the Secretary of State for Industry writing to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asking for
an early statement on whether the Conservative Party would accept a referendum vote against membership of the Market.
The Secretary of State for Social Services thought that Conservatives in Parliament
would not dare to flout the will of the people expressed in a referendum.
I stood as a candidate at six General Elections on a platform in favour of membership of the Common Market. I was elected on all occasions against candidates from all parties who were anti-Common Market. I have never had a pro-Common Market candidate stand against me. I have always had anti-Common Market candidates against me. I do not complain about that, because I have always had a sufficient majority.

Mr. Lee: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. If the referendum goes against membership of the Market and he finds it so unbearable to implement the result, will he be prepared to stand down in his constituency in favour of an anti-Market Conservative?

Mr. Ridley: No. I am prepared to stand as a pro-Common Market candidate in my constituency at the next election.

The Chairman: Order. I am not allowed to say "And the best of luck".

However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to the question of how the votes are to be counted.

Mr. Ridley: Thank you for your support in advance, Mr. Thomas. I wish I could ask you to come on that occasion.
The point is that each of us will have to be responsible for his or her conduct after the referendum. It is just as good a question to ask whether right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are so passionately opposed to membership of the Common Market, will accept the verdict of the referendum. But how can they know the verdict of their constituents if the count is not done on a constituency basis?
The real reason why the members of the Government want the count done on a country or national basis is so that they can slide out of their responsibility to their constituents in what they do when the referendum is over.
It comes particularly ill from the four Ministers who are leading the revolt against the Government's policy to suggest that the result would be binding upon those who, like myself, are in favour, but at the same time to deny me and themselves the opportunity of knowing how our constituents actually voted. This is at the heart of the dishonest case which is being put forward by those who are pressing for a national count.
That brings me to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), whose speech came less close than usual to his standards of integrity and excellence. He argued that it should not be incumbent upon a Member of Parliament to know what his constituents voted in the referendum because it might be embarrassing, because it might put us in a bit of a spot. But the referendum puts us in enough of a spot. Why should not we be forced to face the fact of what our constituents think in this matter? I am prepared to accept it, and if necessary to continue to stand in a mode which is unpopular with what they express.
The worst of all worlds—and I say this with respect to the right hon. Member for Down, South—would be for 12 Members in Ulster to know what their constituents thought, but for 624 Members throughout the rest of the United Kingdom to be able to shuffle out of the


responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could justify that because all the Members for Ulster constituencies are against Europe and the people of Ulster are against Europe. Right hon. and hon. Members have been arguing that the referendum will take this country out of the Common Market. I do not believe that for one moment. I believe that the referendum will show an overwhelming vote to stay in. I am prepared to face my constituents after the declaration of the vote, and I ask those who are not in favour of our continued membership whether they are prepared to face their constituents. Are they prepared to face the results which should be published for every constituency?
I should like to see the reaction of the right hon. Members for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and Down, South, and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) to their constituency results. It is bad enough to have the referendum, but to carry it on in vacuo, away from our direct responsibility, is to increase the irresponsibility of what we are seeking to do.
Finally, I come to the question of counting the votes for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I do not object to the fact that by adding up the results in all the constituencies it will immediately be apparent which way the majority in Scotland or Wales, or, if one likes, Gloucestershire, voted. I think that Gloucestershire will produce a solidly strong vote to stay in, but that will not give Gloucestershire the right to opt out of a national decision, even if that national decision is to take us out of the Common Market.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the right of a national area to opt out of an international situation?

Mr. Ridley: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means. If he means a sovereign area, it is not binding on it. If he means a country such as Wales or Scotland—which is what I think he does mean—I accept the right of those countries to opt out of the Common Market only after they have opted out of the United Kingdom, and not before. That

is the matter which the hon. Gentleman has come here to argue, to debate and to fight for and I admire him for it. I even have some sympathy for him. I should like my constituents to pay very much less by way of tax. They are highly overtaxed and overcharged on their rates. There is something to be said for the hon. Gentleman paying for his own welfare in Scotland.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I am grateful to you, Mr. Thomas, for calling me to speak in this debate. My coleagues and I ally ourselves with the amendment. In passing, may I say that we launched a similar amendment, and we have great pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel).
We base our support for a constituency count on the sheer absurdity of having a central count. If it is not to be a constituency count we should be prepared to accept any unit, but the idea of a central count seems to be manifestly absurd and I should like to address my remarks to that proposition.
The argument whether there should be separate counts for Scotland and Wales is in no sense connected with the question whether this country should stay in the Common Market. If the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) wishes to advocate separatist policies, I must tell him that this is not the debate in which to do it and this is not the time at which to raise it.
The whole question of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, as opposed to England, and this issue of how we count the votes is a total red herring. I should like to know the figures for my constituency, just as I would for East Anglia, the South-West or London. I should like to know the figures regionally, and that is another reason for having a constituency count, but to think that there is some kudos for Members of the SNP in this debate seems to be giving them an importance which they do not deserve. I hope that the Committee will come to the conclusion that we should count by constituencies, so that we may have the courage to face our responsibilities.
The White Paper gave its own case away when it said that the Government would use the well-tried machinery which


served for parliamentary elections. The familiar procedure that continues to apply to normal United Kingdom elections should be used as far as possible.
There is a lot to be said for using the familiar procedure when something as important as a vote on the Common Market is at stake. It has taken us centuries to evolve our system of law and that part of the law which relates to scrutinising the count at election time to ensure fair play. It is patently absurd to throw away all that we have carefully evolved.
There may be those who pooh-pooh the right of scrutiny. It may be that they are in the minority of hon. Members who rejoice in having a majority of votes in their constituencies. My majority is only 367 and when, at the October election, 1,000 votes were labelled with the wrong name we were grateful for the law which allowed us to have scrutineers present. What happened was a pure accident, but one can multiply the hazards experienced by someone who has been through only four parliamentary elections.
One can imagine the situation which could arise with a count lasting for five days. Who will be allowed to scrutinise the votes? Who will watch the sealing of my ballot boxes in Morayshire and Nairnshire? Who will escort them to Earls Court? I shall be in the guard's van with a little of the liquid that they make on Speyside to keep me warm on the long journey. [An hon. Member: "What about keeping the guard warm?"]—I had not considered that possibility. I shall keep it in mind.
I want to devote my speech to the absurdity of the central count. It is absurd for the Government to pretend that this is in accordance with well-tried practice. We are not widely experienced in the holding of referenda, so we turn to the experience of a number of countries in the civilised world. The Government have been fair and given me the ammunition for my speech by publishing the fact that referenda have been held in Australia, Denmark, France, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Northern Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States of America, and in every case there has been no equivalent of what we are calling

the central count. I shall not rehearse all the arguments about the breakdown.
My party and I are saying that we shall accept any breakdown. We tend to think that the constituency is a logical breakdown precisely because it is in line with well-tried practice. There were two General Elections during 1974, a year of painful memories for all. The sheriff clerk's department in Scotland is extremely efficient. It knows how to carry out a count with a minimum amount of time and effort and it can do it much more cheaply when it comes to getting the ballot boxes from the Island of Yell in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) or the Isle of Barra in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). What the Government propose does not make sense, and we are saying that a constituency count is a tried way which provides the right of scrutiny, and that there is no other answer.
I have asked parliamentary questions about this matter. I have asked how many boxes would have to be missing before it was conceded that there were recount problems. I have not been able to obtain serious answers. The matter is treated as a joke. Is it because it is a joke?
5.30 p.m.
In Scotland we fret and feel frustrated before the results of elections are announced. However, we always have the last results before the Sabbath. It will be most frustrating for us if we have to wait five days for the result. We are accustomed to the frustration caused by a few results coming in as late as Saturday. People are frustrated because the final tally cannot be ascertained. Imagine asking the public to wait five days when basically the result, unless it is very close, can be made known within two days or even one day.
It is absurd to have a referendum and then start discussing whether it will be binding. Will not people be very confused if they are told "Even after you have voted we shall still consider whether you were old enough and wise enough to settle the matter"? Having thrown the ball into the people's court, how absurd it is to throw it back to the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said that he will accept whatever his constituents think. I join him. I have a highly agricultural constituency. It may not be typical of Scotland, but I am on record as having said that I shall accept the wishes of my constituents. But we cannot have it both ways. Either Members of Parliament judge an issue, which is perfectly logical—that is what we are accustomed to—or, in an unusual matter, we throw it to the people to be the judges in a referendum. How absurd it is to say that the people are the judges but we must not find out what the people have said.
The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru are being made into bogymen or spectres at a feast on the question of a central count. Almost every serious newspaper has made comments of this kind. The Scotsman wrote that there could
only be one reason why the Government should want to count vote, on a United Kingdom basis, because it fears that the results tanulated constituency by constituency or by county would give ammunition to the Nationalists".
If that is what it is about, we should be honest enough to say so. But that is an absurd reason for deciding the basis of the count. Although I aim to achieve independence for Scotland, I am a Member of the House of Commons and I accept its rules. I am a convinced democrat. Whatever the rules of the House, I shall accept them, and if I break them I shall take whatever reproach Mr. Speaker dishes out.
The idea of having a referendum on the basis of a central count is absurd and undemocratic. There are no means by which we can be sure that the result is correct. If 1,000 votes can go missing in a one-night count, how many votes may go missing in a five-day count? The idea of a central count is so absurd that, if it happens, the Government will be the laughing stock of the civilised, democratic world.

[Mr. W. T. WILLIAMS in the Chair]

Mr. Buchan: Perhaps we can return to some of the arguments involved in this matter, partly because I do not want to follow my favourite pastime of bashing the "Nats". It is a red letter day for them. Curiously enough, I agree with what the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has said.

She based her argument on the question of absurdity. She is an authority on absurdity. What is proposed is an absurd proceeding because it is irrevocable. Her arguments about scrutineers and recounts are irrefutable.
The hon. Lady gave an example from her constituency relating to the loss of 1,000 votes. Similar problems have arisen in other constituencies. Therefore, I do not think that the Government can maintain for much longer, even on tactical, logistic grounds, that there should be a national count. We know some of the difficulties about time into which we are being pushed. The count was to take place over five days—and by the end of that time the pound would have gone down the drain through uncertainty. Now it is three days, one of them being what we call north of the border the Sabbath. Some English friends say that that should be Saturday. The argument in this respect does not wash.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn did less than justice to the Government's case for a national count. I understand that the Government's case is that the purpose of elections or democratic decisions of that kind by the people is to elect a representative in each area. A referendum is a single decision for the United Kingdom, and, therefore the decision is one decision. The constituency decision covers the whole country. That is the argument, and it is logical.
The Government say that it follows that there is no basis for carrying out a constituency count and that, by analogy with the election of hon. Members, there is no case for breaking it down to constituencies. The trouble with the logic is that it forgets a simple point: the moment we have had the result in each constituency we proceed to add up the numbers to decide the Government of the country. Written into our system is the concept of the constituency decisions adding up to the national decision. Therefore, even on the Government's own argument and logic, it would be correct that the decision should be made on a constituency basis.
I come to the error committed by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). He drew a false concision; namely, that we must have a constituency-by-constituency decision because we in Parliament decide the membership,


and, therefore, the Government, constituency by constituency. But that does not follow, for this reason. What should be proposed is to make a head count on one decision in the same way as we make a head count in the House of Commons to make a decision. That is the analogy.
It is, therefore, wrong to think that it is logical to add up the constituency decisions and say "This should be the result of the referendum and we should vote accordingly in the House of Commons." That does not follow, for another reason. In this respect the hon. Gentleman was less than fair. The House of Commons took a count. If we do it on that basis, by an accident of fate, the smaller constituencies are in Scotland and Wales and, therefore, there is a bigger addition for a smaller number of votes. The hon. Gentleman might have been more honest in bringing that out.

Mr. Wigley: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he agree that, given that the Bill has no mechanism for automatically putting the result into practice, this is the next best step?

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman's fear relates not to the referendum but to the behaviour of hon. Members, and that is a different problem which will not be solved by the hon. Gentleman in turn trying to rig the referendum. That is not the way to deal with it. Perhaps I shall have time to comment on that matter.
We are faced with five possible choices. First, there is the Government view, which I hope they will change, that there should be the single constituency—the United Kingdom—count. I have shown what is wrong with that. We are faced with the consideration put forward by the two national parties; namely, that the vote should be taken on a nation basis—and I accept that Scotland and Wales are nations. I shall deal with the fallacies and flaws which arise from that.
I do not think that this is the way to count either, because this assumes, before it has ever happened, if it ever happens, a federated concept for Britain. and adding up Scotland, Wales and England. It has been correctly said that the correct procedure is to make a decision on a United Kingdom basis, and if those nations wish to make another decision afterwards it is up to them. At

the moment the correct constitutional procedure is that it is Britain deciding.
That does not mean that the nations should not know what is happening. What should happen is primarily the constituency argument. I agree with the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in one regard. I must say that one never knows whether the hon. Gentleman believes what he says or whether he is parodying himself. His self-satire and his speeches come so close that one day they will cross.
However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general argument in this regard. I want to know what those in my constituency say about this question. I say in advance that I shall be voting against the Market in the referendum and propagandising against it. I have nothing to hide. If my people in West Renfrewshire vote "Yes" on 5th June they may wish to go for an MP who agrees with them, perhaps; and they can make their decision at the next election.
I am not afraid of such a prospect. It will not be the first time that I have disagreed with my people. I think back to the time when I pushed through the ending of capital punishment in Scotland. That did not meet with the agreement of everyone. There is no reason why an individual Member should be afraid to face up to a decision.

Dr. Colin Phipps: Will my hon. Friend tell the Committee whether, on the basis of the vote which takes place in his constituency, if the constituency voted "Yes", he would then vote "Yes" in the House of Commons for continuing to stay in the Market? If not, what on earth is the point of the referendum?

Mr. Buchan: I thought that I had made it not only manifestly clear but abundantly clear that my position in the House of Commons will be to vote for the decision of the referendum. I will accept the decision of the referendum. That is what I will do, because we have said as a party, as a movement and as a Government that the people will decide. I am campaigning at the moment to get the people to say "No."
I hope that the pro-Marketeers will not crow too quickly. The people have not


yet spoken. If I may go south of the border and quote Chesterton
For we are the people of England, and we have not spoken vet
They may yet speak in a way that will surprise even the denizens of Cirencester and Tewkesbury.
So that question is easily answered. I will vote in accordance with my pledge at the last two elections. I hope that every other Member on these benches at least will vote in accordance with the common pledge we made at the last two elections. That is the answer. The problem need not be thrown at me. There is no problem for me. The question of the behaviour of a Member then arises in this way, not in the way which has been suggested by one hon. Member, because that way leads to quagmires and dragons. It would be a serious decision for British democracy if rightly or wrongly—I think rightly—the House of Commons attempted—and not just this side; there is a double pledge for us but also hon. Members opposite—to reject the decision of the referendum. We should then have a serious situation.

Mr. Michael Mates: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he will accept the decision of the referendum however many people turn out to vote, however low the poll? I should be interested to hear this, because his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister refused to say this yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not."] He said that it was a hypothetical question yesterday when he was asked by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). If we get a 40 per cent. poll only and just half of those vote for Britain's staying in, is that acceptable as the full wish of the British people?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West) Mr. Buchan) has been grievously tempted, of course, but I hope that we shall now return to the matter under discussion. The views of the Prime Minister are not the matter before the Committee. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now return to the debate on the question of the constituency and regional vote.

Mr. Buchan: I am sorry, Mr. Williams. I am a man of innocence surrounded by all these tempters. However,

I will quickly answer the question, if I may. The answer is that I will accept the vote. I greatly regret the habit hon. Members have of using this point not only to be tediously repetitive but also as a means of trying to talk down the vote. It is our task as democratic representatives to talk up the vote. I hope that is the last we shall hear of that nonsense from hon. Members opposite.
5.45 p.m.
The choices we face are the constituency vote and the national vote. I have dealt with why I believe that the constituency vote is theoretically correct. I have dealt with why I believe that a national vote would be wrong.
I want now to comment on the question of the nations' vote. It would be wrong to exaggerate divisions in Britain. The problems facing Cardiff, the problems facing Tyneside, the problems facing Clydeside, are the same problems. I do not want to create such divisions in a United Kingdom referendum at this stage, whatever other arguments may be advanced.
I hope that the Scottish National Party, in particular, will stop its distorting and divisive line of saying "No" to the Market for Britain but "Maybe yes" for Scotland. I wish that its members would campaign together with the rest of us who are willing to drop all sectional interests and to campaign for what we commonly believe in. I would welcome them for once as partners in a progressive struggle.
The constituency basis comes up as theoretically correct, though I do not believe that it will be acceptable to the House of Commons. I greatly regret that. I believe that, despite the siren voice of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, most Members will not be prepared to vote for it.
Therefore, we are faced with the choice betwen Belper and Goole, if I may put it that way. I hope that the Chair will think again about the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), because it embodies the same principle as that in the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), which has been accepted, but it deals with some of the problems that are engendered by it. It is a much more subtle, more complex


and more accurate representation of the position than the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper. Although I never criticise the Chair, I must say that I think that it chose the wrong amendment to be voted on and I hope that we shall be able to have a separate vote on the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Goole.

Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman has presented some powerful arguments against a national poll. He has made quite a few observations but has not presented any convincing arguments against a constituency poll. Why is he so frightened of this? Would it not be useful to have some guidance of this kind?

Mr. Buchan: I must be getting old or something. I thought that I had made it clear that I thought that the constituency basis was the correct one but that I believed that the House of Commons would not accept it.
I therefore argue that we are faced, as opposed to a United Kingdom vote, with either Belper or Goole, so to speak. The problem is that the Goole amendment has not been accepted by the Chair. If it is not accepted by the Chair, we support Belper. That seems to be logical.
Why should the vote be broken down in this way? We deal with the logistic argument, but that is insufficient to deal with the theoretical argument. The answer is simple. I do not believe there is anything to fear from letting it be known how Scotland, Wales or any other area voted. I have no doubt that if it is not known allegations will be made. Already it is being said that the people of Scotland and Wales are being conned. That is totally untrue, but it is undoubtedly being said and undoubtedly being thought.
I prefer to deal with facts rather than mythology. As the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn knows, my main academic life has been spent in the unravelling and study of mythology. That is why I can tell truth when I see it. In this area I would far rather we were dealing with truth than with mythology. If Scotland and Wales do not know what the result is, the national parties will invent the result. They will never be able to pin the truth down.
I would rather face the fact that Scotland and Wales may—they may not, of course—vote in a different way from the rest of the United Kingdom. But let us deal with that when it arises. If it is left as a mythology, backed by the suspicion that they have had the wool pulled over their eyes deliberately, we are dealing with a very trick creature indeed to whom I now give way.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I must thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I take it from his remarks that he would, therefore, support our proposition that a separate White Paper should be published on the Scottish facts and the truth of the arguments for and against?

Mr. Buchan: I think it would be much more important to get a publication on the Scottish situation. I hope the Government will be publishing as fully as possible the facts affecting all aspects of British life and I hope the hon. Lady's party will publish a few true pamphlets as well. That would be a change. However, I am going off the point.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is getting too easily tempted. He must resist temptation, even when it comes in the mantle of truth.

Mr. Buchan: It is a national disease, Mr. Williams.
I hope that today hon. Members will recognise that an error was made in the first place in asking for a United Kingdom vote. I hope also that the Chair will look again at the Goole amendment, for I think that we would endorse overwhelmingly the call from the hon. Member for Belper and break down the polling so that we would know from constituency to constituency, from region to region, and, indeed, from nation to nation how people voted.

Mr. Clegg: I always enjoy the contributions of the hon. Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan), who seems to have a habit of following a Scottish National Member. I hope he will join the hon. Lady in the guard's van in asking for a constituency vote. That will he a most interesting journey.
We have been debating this issue for about two hours and we have been going round in concentric circles. We all know


what happens to birds which fly round in concentric circles. The arguments which have been precipitated by this measure show what an addle-pated monster this measure really is. I have heard some remarkable propositions this afternoon, the most remarkable of all being put forward by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West about the duties of a Member of Parliament. He said that he personally, as well as other hon. Members on his side of the Committee, will accept the decision. He knows that we on this side of the Committee do not accept that proposition and it seems to me that hon. Members opposite are now trying to blackguard us into the position of so doing.
I find myself very much in agreement with the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Like him, I have stood at four elections and have put forward clearly my own view that we ought to stay in the Market. If we have a national count I shall not have the vaguest idea of how my constituents have voted. Yet if hon. Members opposite have their way I must come back from my constituency to Westminster not knowing how my constituents voted, and vote against something with which I personally disagree and with which my constituents might well disagree. What sort of a Member of Parliament would I be for those people, voting in ignorance of their views? This is a matter which we must take into account.
It is a very uncomfortable thing to have a constituency count. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have lived in uncomfortable situations. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) nodding. He knows full well what it is to take an unpopular line in his constituency, and outside it, as well as in his own party and with his own Whips. I, too, have had plenty of experience of that. I must say that he looks quite unscathed by the whole experience. I would not say the same of hon. Members opposite who happen to disagree with their Whips, but that is a matter for them.
Sometimes voices from the past can be of some guidance in what should be the duties of hon. Members. I have consulted Burke, and what he says—not the

principle but the way he put it—is worth listening to. In a thousand years I could not put it in a better way. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite would like me to try rather than quote Burke, I will do so, but they might be here for a long time. He said:
Their wishes"—
that is, his constituents'—
ought to have great weight with him; their opinions, high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfaction, to theirs—and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure,—no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
That puts the argument in a nutshell.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) because my name is associated with a similar amendment. I also agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who said that whatever happens, if the count is proceeded with on a national basis there is no doubt that every attempt will be made at local level to discover how people voted locally. I thought he ended in a rather unusual way, for, having gone over the whole of it and advocated that there should be a vote in constituencies in Ireland, he departed from that line in respect of the rest of the United Kingdom. If it is divided into larger regions, the same will still apply. In a constituency, people will do their very best to ascertain how the votes are cast, and it is right that they should know.
In this country there are wide disparities, for instance, in the spread of industry. Some Members represent agricultural constituencies, while others represent industrial constituencies, and there is no doubt that in the vote people will reach their decisions in different ways, but I believe that having reached a decision they will have a right to know how other people in a given constituency have voted.
Equally, I, as a Member of Parliament, have a right to know my constituents' views in this matter. I shall accept the national result. I have said that and I stand by it. But it is democratically right that we should hear the result on a constituency basis. It should be announced on a constituency basis.

Mr. Ridley: While entirely agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, may I ask him what he would do if his constituents voted overwhelmingly one way, whereas the national result was overwhelmingly the other way?

Mr. Hoyle: I think the answer has already been given. I have said that I shall accept the national result of the people. It is quite clear where I stand. I might equally ask the hon. Gentleman what he would do in his own constituency of Cirencester and Tewkesbury. He has already told us that he is in favour of our being in Europe. I know that he joins me in the belief that the result ought to be declared on a constituency basis, but what would he do if he found that he was mistaken about the views of his constituents and that they voted to come out of Europe? What would he personally do? That is the answer we want from some Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman has told us—indeed, he is continually telling me—that he always knows the views of his constituents.

Mr. Ridley: I said that I would continue to stand and vote in favour of Europe whatever the results of the referendum, either in my constituency or in the country. That determination will last for years and years after the hon. Gentleman has ceased to be heard of.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Hoyle: I am a better democrat than the hon. Gentleman, because I have said that I shall accept the verdict of the people. I hope that that will stand me in good stead in future years. I have already declared my position.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the hon. Gentleman think it proper for a representative, if he considers that a particular course of action is likely to be disastrous for his country, to vote against his own beliefs, because of the momentary decision—perhaps not to be repeated—at one referendum?

Mr. Hoyle: I do not believe that it is disastrous to test the will of the people on such vital issues as national sovereignty, which it appears the hon. Gentleman would give away. That is necessary. It should have been done before we decided on entry, as it was in Ireland, Denmark and Norway. That is the test of democracy. It is the hon. Gentleman who has given up the claim to believe in democracy, by accepting entry without testing the will of the people. That is where the disaster lies. I hope that the position will be remedied. I shall accept the verdict of the people in the referendum.
I turn to the question of the way in which the count will be conducted. It has been said that it will be a national monstrosity to conduct it on a national basis. It will take days before the result is announced. Some of my hon. Friends have said that it could affect our economic situation, which is not good at the moment, and that the pound will be in difficulties if the result is long delayed. There is also the difficulty of the transport of the ballot boxes. In the light of her experiences I do not blame the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), who said that she will follow the ballot boxes down. I hope that the guard is a handsome man, and that she enjoys her journey.
One question has not been answered. On what basis will a person or persons representing the two organisations be able to demand a recount? I foresee that recounts will go on for a considerable time. My right hon. Friend the Lord President, replying to earlier questions about holiday makers and others, said that there was a difficulty over the hall at Earls Court, because after 14 days it would no longer be available. What will happen if recounts are still taking place? It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we shall have to wait not five days but 10, or maybe 14 for a result if the voting is close. It is stupid to get ourselves into this kind of position when we would be doing the right thing if we went for a constituency result.
I am not as downhearted as some of my hon. Friends who do not believe that we shall tonight achieve what we desire, which is a constituency count. I believe that there is widespread support for it in the Committee. However, if we do not


achieve it I shall support the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. Farquhar), that instead of a national count we should break the vote down again, although that would not be as representative.
Another reason why I support a constituency count is that there is always more interest engendered, the smaller the unit. If we have it on a national basis, the poll will be lower than if it is on a constituency basis.

Mr. MacFarquhar: This point of interest has been raised by other hon. Members. Does my hon. Friend agree that, after two General Elections counted by the same method last year, having a third count on the same basis may diminish interest? Does he agree that if we are to have a referendum a new system of counting in regions may increase interest?

Mr. Hoyle: No. I must reject that. All the facts are against it. When we turn from local elections to county elections, we immediately find that the poll goes down. The larger the unit, the less the interest.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: My hon. Friend has said that in local elections the poll goes down, but does he not agree that in such elections the result is on the basis of a ward, which, by definition, is smaller than a constituency?

Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend has not fully understood. I said that in local elections, the smaller the unit the greater the interest. We know that when there were UDCs or borough councils greater interest was shown in the smaller wards. The units were increased in size, and in the new county unit the poll has gone down. I am pleased that my hon. Friend made that point. There is greater interest in a smaller unit.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I have followed with great interest the argument about the practical difficulties of a national count. Will my hon. Friend address himself to how we arrange a recount when the count has taken place on a constituency basis so that every constituency, having declared at various

times, has to recount? What matters is the national result.

Mr. Hoyle: There may be a necessity for a recount on a constituency basis but how much easier and quicker it would be! I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with the logic of my argument. We should get the result far quicker and more efficiently. The British people would know the result far sooner.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister what he thinks would constitute the necessity of a recount on a national basis?

Mr. Hoyle: I have just asked that question, and I hope that we shall get the answer later.
As a secondary step I would support Amendment No. 49, of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar). I hope that when we vote democracy will prevail, and that we shall have the constituency count.

Mr. Alan Clark: I cannot understand why any Member, with the possible exception of the Prime Minister would not wish that the result of the referendum should be both counted. which is more economic, and announced, which is more democratic, on a constituency basis. There has been much high-sounding talk about the verdict of the British people. However, the identity of the British people is founded in the regions that they inhabit. Those regions are formed of constituent parts with all the diverse whims, needs and characteristics that, in combination, have sent us to this place. The wish that these component elements in the verdict should be shrouded in the obscurity of a central count and a mass result is a symptom of the basic flaws in the whole device of the referendum.
The first flaw is the abdication by the House of criticism, evaluation, judgment and authority which the electorate entrusted to us when they sent us here. The second is the violation of the relationship which every one of us has, or should have, with his constituents.
I believe that those who drafted the Bill had two purposes. The first was to pass the buck, to contrive a situation in which, whatever the result and whatever


the consequences, they could wash their hands and say "the people decided". They were passing the buck to the people on one of the most complex, far-reaching and specialised subjects ever put before the electorate. The second purpose was to avoid as far as possible, by concealment, any electoral consequences to themselves by the possibility of breaking down the answer into component parts and individual reactions.
That is the prime objection to the Bill —the distorting and obscuring of the Member of Parliament's relationship with his electorate. It is one that the Committee is best placed to ameliorate by amendment. Although it is presented as an extension of democracy, the Bill is a retrograde step, because it still further diminishes the individual character of the elector. If the results are presented on a constituency basis some individual and indentifiable characteristics of the answer may still be perceived and retained; but if it is simply an anonymous mass, a pure computer exercise without identity or emphasis, the real quality of democracy, which the House reflects, will be diminished.
By accepting the amendment the Committee at least has the possibility of ameliorating an evil precedent and retaining some vestige of its proper authority.

Dr. Phipps: By a completely different route, I arrive at a similar position to that of my hon. Friends the Members for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) in supporting the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), although I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West that the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), which has not been selected, is better and perhaps more precise.
I speak as someone who has been opposed to the whole concept of the referendum, who, in supporting the Labour Party manifesto in two General Elections, supported a statement that we would put the decision to the British people through the ballot box, and who has always been prepared—and has said so—to see that decision put to them

through the ballot box in a General Election. I always thought that that was something which the Labour Party had to decide, and which it had the courage to put to the people.
I was told that one of the principal reasons why that could not be done was that we could not fight a General Election on a single issue. What has come out of the debate more than anything else is that the people, and certainly the hon. Members representing them, do not believe that we shall have a referendum on a single issue either. It is clear that the people of Northern Ireland and Scotland will be voting for different reasons, and on a different issue from that on which my constituents will vote. I accept the challenge of the Scottish National Party to recognise that it will be fighting a campaign completely different from that which will be fought in other parts of the country.

Mr. John Ovenden: Does my hon. Friend accept that the real reason why we could not hold a General Election on the issue is that the leaderships of all three parties have lined up on the same side, so that a General Election would be an utter nonsense?

Dr. Phipps: I should he trespassing if I answered that question, Mr. Williams? I am prepared to answer it, if—

The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will just get on with his speech.

Dr. Phipps: It is clear that the issue that will be voted upon and campaigned upon in Northern Ireland and Scotland will be different from the issue campaigned upon in other parts of the country.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman has repeated his statement that in Northern Ireland—I can see the point about Scotland—the issue will be different. Will he explain what he means by that?

6.15 p.m.

Dr. Phipps: I have suspected for some time that the issue in Northern Ireland will be closely connected with the border question. I find it difficult to believe that voters in Northern Ireland will not take into account Eire's membership of the Community in deciding how to vote.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the Republican Party in Northern Ireland is anti-Common Market.

Dr. Phipps: The Republican Party and and the right hon. Gentleman's party may officially have a view, but I believe that when the people of Northern Ireland vote in the referendum many of them will be voting about the nature of Northern Ireland and the political position and constitution that they wish to have. I believe that that is also true of Scotland. The Scottish National Party has made it clear that that is the basis on which it will campaign in Scotland, and I expect that Plaid Cymru will do the same.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I think that my hon. Friend is subscribing to the mythology perpetuated by the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cmyru that the result in Wales and Scotland will have something to do with the nationalist question. The only reason why there may be a certain result in Wales and Scotland is their distances from the EEC. It is nothing to do with the nationalist question.

Dr. Phipps: I am prepared to accept the statement of the nationalist parties that that is how they will campaign, and I regard that as having an important influence on the campaign in general.
If we are to have a total national count, when the issue being fought is different in different parts of the country, I believe that we shall have a result which is not representative of what my constituents want. Therefore, it is important to me that we have a count on something other than the national basis.
Equally, a nation count would be a bad precedent. A specifically nation count would allow the nationalist parties in particular to fight a campaign directed completely at their national situation rather than the specific issue of the Common Market. I can believe that there would be people in Scotland who were in favour of Common Market membership but who thought that a vote against it would be an effective way to present to the rest of the British people a protest from Scotland, and vice-versa. Therefore, I am not in favour of a national vote of that kind.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does not the hon. Gentleman foresee that in England certain Conservative pro-Marketeers might vote against membership, to embarrass the Prime Minister?

Dr. Phipps: I can see that they could do it to embarrass the Labour Party. I believe that in the Sunday Telegraph a couple of weeks ago Peregrine Worsthorne proposed that Conservatives should vote against staying in the Community, in order to defeat the Labour Government. I accept that that might happen.
I am basically in favour of a constituency vote.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (Lichfield and Tam-worth): My hon. Friend is now saying that he is quite sympathetic towards the idea of a constituency vote—

Dr. Phipps: I have not yet said why.

Mr. Grocott: Yesterday my hon. Friend was supporting an amendment—which fortunately failed—to enfranchise people from abroad. One of the crucial distinctions he made between a referendum and a General Election was that it was not possible to relate people from abroad to particular constituencies here. That, he said, was the basic reason for treating referenda differently from General Elections, in terms of constituency results. I cannot understand how, if the amendment had been successfully carried yesterday, that would have been consistent with the granting of a constituency vote, which he is now apparently adumbrating.

Dr. Phipps: I hope that my hon. Friends will allow me to develop my argument before jumping up and questioning me. I had not had the opportunity to develop the argument why I thought a constituency vote to be acceptable. The reason is that it is a pragmatic and useful basis, but I cannot see why it has any special basis for a referendum. I do not see the conection between a constituency and the referendum, apart from the pure practicalities of the count and the counting mechanism.

Mr. Grocott: Which would be the constituency of the overseas voter?

Dr. Phipps: We discussed that issue at length yesterday.


A constituency vote is a practical approach, but is not necessarily related to the referendum as a whole. I have no fears about a constituency vote, but I accept that with a constituency count the totality of votes might produce a majority one way while the majority on a basis of constituencies would go the other way. This has happened in a General Election —I believe it was in 1951 when the Labour Party had a majority of votes but a minority of seats and lost the election.
I fear that such a result would create great difficulties for many hon. Members in knowing which of the two results they should accept. Such an outcome would produce a multiplicity of excuses, and this is a situation in which the fewer possible excuses the better. We should have votes on a regional basis which, while getting away from the problems of a nation vote would none the less allow Members to know how their region voted if not their constituency.

Mr. Wigley: How does the hon. Member envisage applying the regional basis to Wales?

Dr. Phipps: In principle I support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Goole, which is based generally upon larger local government areas, and I would expect that to apply to Wales as well. In Wales, that would produce a useful vote, giving Welsh Members an idea of how the different regions of Wales had voted without creating the difficulties inherent in a constituency vote. I am in favour of my hon. Friend's amendment which, unfortunately, has not been selected, and therefore I am bound to support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper, which is similar to it though perhaps not quite so specific.
I dislike the national count for the same reason that I want to know what my region's, or—if it so turns out—my constituency's view is. I am most reluctant to be bound by a result which may be produced because of the way people in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have voted, however legitimately. I do not question that their vote is legitimate, but they would be voting for different reasons from those motivating my constituents. I would want to know what the vote was before making up my mind about what action I should take after the referendum.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I have yet to hear a genuine, substantive argument against a constituency count from anyone—with the possible exception of the "Goole argument", that it would inconvenient in Goole. Goole managed to conduct a General Election count without too much trouble, and I fail to understand the relevance of the view expressed by the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall).
A constituency count is normally quick, acceptable and understandable, and it even allows for recounts, though the Lord preserve us from recounts on the referendum. Why, therefore, can we not have a constituency count?

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Hon. Members have not taken the point about recounts. The hon. Member says that a constituency count would permit a recount easily and simply. A referendum recount can take place only after there is a national result. How are the counting officers in each of the 635 constituencies to be recalled for a recount two days after they have gone home?

Mr. Johnston: I would have thought that the problem of a recount was considerable whether the counting took place centrally in Earls Court, which I understand will not be available for some time after 5th June because of a display there, or in the constituencies. The problem will be the same in terms of recalling the counting officers, but on a constituency basis the process might take place more quickly.

Mr. Lee: Surely the true reason for a recount is to ensure a proper reconciliation and an arithmetically correct result. It does not matter whether it takes place in one constituency hours or even days before another.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Nonsense.

Mr. Johnston: The Minister says sotto voce that it is nonsense, but I do not see how he can sustain that view.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: There is no possibility of calling for a recount till the last constituency is counted, which I take it may well be the Western Isles. Till that has happened there cannot be a recount, but by that time the counters in all the other constituencies will have gone home for two days. At Earls Court, on a


national count, the counters are still all there.

Mr. Johnston: I still do not believe that to be an insuperable practical objection. We are talking about a hypothesis which most of the intentions about the result of the referendum suggest is most unlikely to be realised. I contend that it is perfectly possible and practical on a local constituency basis to recall people fairly quickly to carry out the recount.

Mr. George Thompson: If there are faults which require to be corrected by a recount which is carried out on a constituency basis, surely it will be because of a fault in a particular constituency. The recount could be readily carried out in that constituency.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: No.

Mr. Johnston: But I would accept that.
I move on now to the main gravamen of the argument, which is not about practicalities. I do not think that the objection to a constituency count stems from the view that it would be less practical. The practicalities of having a count at national or regional level are more complex on balance than having it at constituency level. Therefore, the objections to having a count on a constituency level are political, but we have not heard any argument based on those objections apart from the intervention of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who spoke of potential pressure being put on Members of Parliament. What pressure on which Members? That should be made quite clear at this stage. Of course, there is the nationalist question. That argument has been rehearsed and I shall not pursue it. I believe that it is better to know the facts than to have to deal with myths.
6.30 p.m.
The other element we must consider is the group which has not spoken in this debate—namely, the social democrats within the Labour Party. It is a fact that many of them are deeply worried because a constituency count could lead to a situation in which they, being in favour of the Common Market, might find that a majority of their constituents had voted against it. It is right to allude directly

to that situation as it has not yet been mentioned in this debate.
As a Liberal I have fought and stood for minority issues all my political life. I see no reason for anyone in any party being afraid of knowing the feelings of his constituents Surely that is a wrong attitude to adopt—fear of knowing one's constituents feelings. If that is the reason which will determine the votes of certain hon. Members tonight, I believe it is rather shameful. It is not a reason of which to be proud.
I do not think that the practical arguments hold any weight.

Mr. Hurd: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Mr. Lee) was speaking, but he uttered some very rough threats against certain members of his own party who will do what the hon. Gentleman has suggested. Will he show a little more sympathy for people who might find themselves in that predicament?

Mr. Johnston: I am tired of showing sympathy. I am tired of watching people whom I regard as Liberals sitting in the ranks of the Labour Party. In that way they enjoy the fruits of office and they do not have to bear the brunt of the battle people such as myself have to bear. That is why I am not overflowing with sympathy for them. In any event, that is a different question.
I know that time is pressing and I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President is becoming restless. I conclude by saying that I think that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) put his finger on the very point that forms the basis of the referendum and what the referendum is all about—namely, the principle of letting the people have their say and letting their say be known. It is a question of having an anonymous result or an open result. If I do not know how the people in my constituency voted the result for me is anonymous. I want to know what they said and how they voted. I believe that all hon. Members should have a similar desire.

[Mr. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): We have had a long


debate on this issue, and perhaps I should say a few words. There are a large number of amendments on the Order Paper proposing alternatives to a central count and a single declaration. The amendments fall into two groups, namely, those in favour of declaring the results by constituencies and those in favour of declaring the result by counties, or regional authorities in Scotland. I am very much in favour of a central count but on the Government side we shall have a free vote.
First, I shall rehearse briefly the arguments for a central count. The issue in the referendum is a United Kingdom issue, and only the United Kingdom is significant. The constituency is the whole of the United Kingdom. When we have parliamentary elections we do not announce the results for a ward or a polling district but for the constituency as a whole. I believe it is right that the same principle should apply in the referendum.
Secondly, some of those who support the amendments want to be able to demonstrate that Scotland or Wales thinks differently from the rest of the United Kingdom in order to promote an argument for independence that has been consistently rejected by their own electorates. In the Government's view it would be wrong in principle to try to turn a referendum on one issue into a referendum on another. The Government have announced in a White Paper their proposals for devolution to Scotland and Wales, and I have promised legislation by the end of the year. When we come to debate that legislation that will be the occasion for argument about the aspiration of our friends from Scotland and Wales.

Mr. George Thompson: In 1707 the Scottish Parliament transferred Scottish sovereignty to a new body that was being set up, namely the Parliament of Great Britain. The Treaty of Union gave no authority to that new body to transfer the sovereignty of Scotland to a third party. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that on this occasion it is essential that the Scottish people should know how they vote? Does he agree that this is a question of Scottish sovereignty being transferred from a second party to a third?

Mr. Short: I have explained in the House, and the White Paper explains, that this Parliament can never alienate its sovereignty permanently.
The whole case for regional counting rests upon the desire to record for all time which parts of the country voted one way and which parts another way. Why should people wish to do this if not to perpetuate for the future the divisions and bitterness with which the EEC issue has sadly been surrounded for so long? What other reason can there be but to perpetuate these differences? When the referendum is over and the issue has been settled it is surely of critical importance for us all that we should unitedly accept the result, whatever it is, and join together to build upon it the best future that we can for our country. That will certainly not be helped by recalling how individual parts of the country voted. All that will do is make it easier to foster dissent and help to entrench any existing regional attitudes towards our membership of the Community. It is surely far better to face any short-term controversy over a central count and to resist these amendments than to risk damaging national unity in the future.
If that is true of a county count it is even more true of a count by constituencies, for then we should risk adding to the divisions that I have mentioned the further and real difficulties of those hon. Members who decided that the national interest, as expressed by the nation as a whole, should outweigh the views of their individual constituencies.
We, the Government and Parliament, have made it clear again and again that the final decision on our membership of the Community must rest with Parliament. We are also sure, as the Prime Minister has said, that the House as a whole will not flout the people's wishes. When my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was confronted with the question "Which people?" he did not answer. The House will wish to be guided by the wishes of the nation as a whole and not by individual parts of it. That is the essence of the case for a central count.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman please address himself to the relationship—which I and other


hon. Members have argued in this debate —between Members of Parliament and their constituents? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if constituents are canvassed for an opinion on this or any other matter the person above all others who should know their opinion is their Member of Parliament, in whose hands rest the decision on this or any similar issue?

Mr. Short: I would have thought that hon. Members would have taken the trouble to find out the views of their constituents on a matter of this importance. I know that hon. Members are, naturally, often rightly impatient of arguments about administrative convenience. We heard a great deal about this yesterday. Many hon. Members—the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) for instance—have attacked the proposal to count all the votes at Earls Court precisely on these grounds. Now that the preparations for a count at Earls Court are well advanced, and they had to be whatever the Committee decides, it is clear that adequate arrangements can be made for the transport, the security of the ballot boxes, the recruitment of staff and the organisation of the counting operation. I believe that at the moment the balance of administrative convenience lies very much with a central count.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: rose—

Mr. Short: It is no use the hon. Lady or any other hon. Member saying that it cannot be done or that it can be done only in a chaotic way. I assure the Committee that it can be done, and if the Committee so decides, it will be done, and done efficiently.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us one or two details about the way in which it can be done? It is one thing to make a categorical statement that it can be done. How many scrutineers will there be? Can Members of Parliament go along and watch? If so, are we to have five days off? May we have a few of the "nitty gritty" details that are so crucial?

Mr. Short: If the hon. Lady has read the draft order she will see that Members of Parliament are empowered to go into the polling stations.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: For the count?

Mr. Short: The Secretary of State for the Home Department is empowered to select scrutineers for the count—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Members of Parliament?

Mr. Short: I am sure that if the hon. Lady wishes to be a scrutineer my right hon. Friend will be happy to appoint her —if she is fit to do the job after travelling down in the guard's van.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is it in order for a Minister to give powers in this matter to another Minister who has no authority over Scottish affairs since it appears that the Home Secretary is being given duties which have no relevance to Scotland?

The Chairman: It is remarkable what Ministers can do. However, the Chair has no control over them.

Mr. Short: None of the counties in England and Wales has experience of counting votes, and in the six weeks left for the referendum they will have very little time to make preparations. In Scotland the position is even more difficult because, as I explained yesterday, the new regional authorities do not take over until the middle of May. Amendment No. 49, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), on which we are to vote separately, for a declaration by counties would allow all the votes in the United Kingdom to be counted in London, rather than in the counties or in the Scottish regions, even though results would be declared by the national counting official.
An arrangement of this kind, apart from the administrative advantages, would ensure that early results from small counties did not give a misleading impression of the likely United Kingdom result. We have not yet reached a final decision on this, but this could well be the outcome if the amendment is carried, that is a central count—I believe the administrative advantage lies there now —but a declaration by counties.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. MacFarquhar: My right hon. Friend will doubtless have noticed that I suggest that it would be better to have the count done locally and the result


declared nationally, from a national centre.

Mr. Short: That would be possible. All I am pointing out is another possibility under the amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to compromise and is spoiling his original decision. If we are to have a national count he should not spoil it on the basis of announcing the result by counties. We will then be in the situation that we are in a General Election, when one minute we are in Europe and the next minute we are out of it. There would be results which would contradict each other every half hour.

Mr. Short: I have told the Committee that I am very much in favour of a national count and a national declaration. All I say is that if the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper is carried it will be possible to have a central, national count but to have the county results declared centrally by the national counting officer.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Ludicrous!

Mr. Short: It is not ludicrous. It is very much the system used in two or three other countries.
I turn now to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) to which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke. This is an amendment to the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper. It proposes that in the event of a declaration in the rest of the United Kingdom by counties or regions the result in Northern Ireland should be declared by parliamentary constituencies. This amendment will of course fall if my hon. Friend's amendment is defeated. I think all I need say about the hon. Gentleman's amendment at this stage is that if the Committee votes against the Liberal amendment in favour of constituency results through out the United Kingdom I do not think that there are any compelling reasons why we should make special arrangements for constituency results in Northern Ireland. The Committee will accept that the dangers of divisiveness are especially great in Northern Ireland.
One final point, which may not be unimportant. As my hon. Friend's conse-

quential amendment to Clause 4 recognises, the Service votes—perhaps 300,000 of them—for which we have now made special provision in Clause I will be counted and declared separately if my hon. Friend's amendment is carried and the votes in the United Kingdom are counted and declared by counties. In a close result for the United Kingdom as a whole it might then prove to be the case that the Service votes had been decisive. If, on the other hand we have only a single United Kingdom result the influence of these Service votes or of the votes from any particular part of the United Kingdom will never be known. If we are all to accept the result of the referendum we do not want to be divided by issues of this kind.
I hope that I have said enough to persuade the Committee that my hon. Friend's amendment in favour of a declaration by counties is wrong in principle and could have unfortunate consequences. Nevertheless, I recognise that hon. Members take different views about this. That is why, on the Labour side of the Committee, we shall have a free vote on the amendment. I believe that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be voting unhesitatingly against the amendment. I hope that the Committee will reject it.
Let me make clear what the position is. Hon. Members who want constituency voting should vote for the Liberal amendment which will be put immediately after this debate. Hon Members who want a declaration by counties should support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Later.

Mr. Short: Hon. Members who want neither but want a national count should vote against all these amendments. That is the course I commend to the Committee.

Mr. John Peyton: We have had a long debate, which I am bound to say has not been wholly enthralling. A number of hon. Members favour the idea of a local constituency count on the honourable and decent ground that they would like to know how their constituents voted. Others favour local constituency counts on rather less respectable grounds, in that they would like to know how the


constituents of some of their hon. Friends voted, presumably because they would very much like to take the opportunity of being very nasty indeed to them.
Therefore, much as I respect the former opinions, I am driven to look at some-thing else. The next alternative which is presented is that as this is a "one-off", once only, unique operation, and ought to be different, we should have a national count. I wish that I had confidence that the administrative capacity of those who would be responsible for carrying out such a monstrous operation would be equal to it. However, it could be that an operation such as the marshalling of all these thousands of ballot boxes might even attract the attention of practical jokers, let alone, if I may mention it, those of more sinister intentions.
The Government would be ill-advised to accept the course which the Leader of the House has perfectly reasonably urged. They would be well-advised to turn away from an adventure which might well degenerate into high farce. It shows the nobility of my own temperament in putting this, because Conservative Members of the Committee dislike the whole idea of the referendum very much indeed and should not be expected to object to its operation degenerating into farce. Nevertheless, there is an underlying issue of immense gravity for the country. Therefore, it would be wrong to take risks with it.
I very much hope that the Government will have second thoughts and will recoil from this administrative horror and take account of the argument that has been used against it, that it will be a means of concealing the way in which people voted. As such it would not be effective for one moment. Indeed, it would play into the hands of some people—whom I shall not name because I do not wish to be interrupted. Whatever the

result, they would always claim that they had been tricked, and they would have the best of every possible world. I do not think that they should be presented with such an easy opportunity.

Conservative Members have a free vote, but just in case any of my right hon. or hon. Friends are interested in my opinion or my intentions, in my view the wisest thing to do would be to vote for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar). One other reason for commending that amendment is that it took the hon. Gentleman precisely half the time to recommend it to the Committee that it took his hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) to recommend the alternative. Therefore, there is an added merit there.

I seriously believe that on this occasion the Committee would be well advised to accept the alternative suggestion put for-ward by the hon. Member for Belper and have a count carried out, if possible, on a county basis and declared on a county basis. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there would be no objection to it and that it would be perfectly possible under the amendment of his hon. Friend. One would hope that after such a reasonable compromise procedure had been carried out, we would all, hopefully, determine that we would never, never, repeat this ghastly experiment, wished upon us, as it was, by one of the worst counsellors under whose advice this nation has ever laboured.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household),: rose in his place and claimed to move,That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 260, Noes 156.

Division No. 181.]
AYES
[6.55 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Buchan, Norman


Archer, Peter
Biffen, John
Buchanan, Richard


Armstrong, Ernest
Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)


Ashley, Jack
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Boardman H.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Booth, Albert
Campbell, Ian


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Canavan, Dennis


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cant, R. B.


Bates, Alf
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bean, R. E.
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cartwright, John


Bonn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Clemitson, Ivor




Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hunter, Adam
Richardson. Miss Jo


Coiquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Janner, Greville
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Crawford, Douglas
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rooker, J. W.


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rose, Paul B.


Cryer, Bob
John, Brynmor
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ryman, John


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sedgemore, Brian


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Selby, Harry


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv, NE)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Delargy, Hugh
Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lamborn, Harry
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Lee, John
Small, William


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dunn, James A.
Litterick, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie
Stallard, A. W.


Edelman, Maurice
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Edge, Geoff
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McElhone, Frank
Stott, Roger


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Macfarlane, Nell
Strang, Gavin


English, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mackintosh, John P.
Swain, Thomas


Evans, John (Newton)
Maclennan Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Madden, Max
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon
Thompson, George


Flannery, Martin
Marks, Kenneth
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Marquand, David
Tierney, Sydney


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tomlinson, John


Ford, Ben
Marten, Neil
Tomney, Frank


Forrester, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Torney, Tom


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Meacher, Michael
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


George, Bruce
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Ward, Michael


Gilbert, Dr John
Mills, Peter
Watkins, David


Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Watt, Hamish


Golding John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weetch, Ken


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Grant, John (Islington C)
Muiley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wellbeloved, James


Grocott, Bruce
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Welsh, Andrew


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Newens, Stanley
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hardy, Peter
Noble, Mike
White, James (Pollak)


Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric
Whitlock, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hatton, Frank
Ovenden, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Padley, Walter
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Henderson, Douglas
Park, George
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Heseltine, Michael
Parker, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hooley, Frank
Parry, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Horam, John
Pavitt, Laurie
Woof, Robert


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Perry, Ernest
Young, David (Bolton E)


Huckfield, Les
Phipps, Dr Colin



Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Price, William (Rugby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Radice, Giles
Mr. James Hamilton and


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Reid, George
Mr. David Stoddart.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Beith, A. J.
Blaker, Peter


Altken, Jonathan
Benyon, W.
Body, Richard


Alison, Michael
Berry, Hon Anthony
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Banks, Robert
Biggs-Davison, John
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)







Braine, Sir Bernard
Hurd, Douglas
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Brittan, Leon
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brotherton, Michael
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bryan, Sir Paul
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Buck, Antony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Budgen, Nick
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bulmer, Esmond
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Burden, F. A.
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Churchill, W. S.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sainsbury, Tim


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clegg, Walter
Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Nicholas


Cockcroft, John
Lawson, Nigel
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cope, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shersby, Michael


Crowder, F. P.
Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Luce, Richard
Sinclair, Sir George


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Drayson, Burnaby
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Madel, David
Sproat, lain


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mates, Michael
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mather, Carol
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maude, Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawby, Ray
Stradling Thomas, J.


Freud, Clement
Mayhew, Patrick
Tapsell, Peter


Fry, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tebbit, Norman


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moate, Roger
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector
Townsend, Cyril D.


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Gorst, John
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Viggers Peter


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mudd, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Gray, Hamish
Nelson, Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Griffiths, Eldon
Neubert, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Newton, Tony
Weatherill, Bernard


Grist, Ian
Normanton, Tom
Wells, John


Grylls, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally
Winterton, Nicholas


Hampson, Dr Keith
Osborn, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hannam, John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Pardoe, John
Younger, Hon George


Hastings, Stephen
Penhaligon, David



Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian



Hicks, Robert
Prior, Rt Hon James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hordern, Peter
Rathbone, Tim
Sir Raymond Gower and


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Mr. Peter Emery.


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas.

The Chairman: Order. There can be no point of order until I have put the Question.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Adley: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Thomas—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I can see the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot hear him.

Mr. Adley: I must apologise for my headgear, Mr. Thomas, which has been borrowed from the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). How-

ever, I wish to raise a serious point of order. The Government have suddenly sought to guillotine this important piece of constitutional legislation, when I and many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Government side of the Committee were waiting to hear the views of Scottish and Welsh Members, such as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower). May we have an assurance from the Government that they will not resort again to this miserable guillotine procedure on this miserable little Bill?

The Chairman: I can give the hon. Member no assurances of any kind about the behaviour of the Government. The discretion to grant the closure belongs to the Committee.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 131, Noes 264.

Division No. 182.]
AYES
17.10 p.m.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Awdry, Daniel
Gorst, John
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gray, Hamish
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bean, R. E.
Griffiths, Eldon
Ryman, John


Beith, A. J.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Scott, Nicholas


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hatton, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Henderson, Douglas
Selby, Harry


Benyon, W.
Hooley, Frank
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Body, Richard
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Skinner, Dennis


Booth, Albert
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Buchanan, Richard
Huckfield, Les
Sproat, Iain


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Stallard, A. W.


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, Greville
Stanbrook, Ivor


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Campbell, Ian
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Swain, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kelley, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Cartwright, John
Kerr, Russell
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
t amble, David
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Clegg, Walter
Lamond, James
Thompson, George


Clemitson, Ivor
Lawson, Nigel
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Lee, John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Litterick, Tom
Tierney, Sydney


Corbett, Robin
Loyden, Eddie
Torney, Tom


Costain, A. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Viggers, Peter


Crawford, Douglas
McGuire, Michael (Inca)
Waintwright, Richard (Coine V)


Cryer, Bob
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Deakins, Eric
McNamara, Kevin
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Dempsey, James
Madden, Max
Watt, Hamish


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marten, Neil
Weetch, Ken


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Welsh, Andrew


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mikardo, Ian
Wlgiey, Dafydd


Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Monro, Hector
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Woof, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Mudd, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
O'Halloran, Michael
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley




Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Pardoe, John


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Parry, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freud, Clement
Penhaligon, David
Mr. David Steele and


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Reid, George
Mr. Cyrii Smith.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Richardson. Miss Jo



Gilbert, Dr John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas





NOES


Abse, Leo
Carlisle, Mark
Emery, Peter


Adley, Robert
Cockcroft, John
English, Michael


Altken, Jonathan
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Alison, Michael
Cope, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Archer, Peter
Cormack, Patrick
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashley, Jack
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Ford, Ben


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Banks, Robert
Cronin, John
Freeson, Reginald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Crowder, F. P.
Fry, Peter


Bates, Alf
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Biffen, John
Davidson, Arthur
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Biggs-Davison, John
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
George, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Ginsburg, David


Blaker, Peter
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Golding, John


Boardman H.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Goodhart, Philip


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Goodhew, Victor


Boacawen, Hon Robert
de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Delargy, Hugh
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Grant, John (Islington C)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dormand, J. D.
Grist, Ian


Brittian, Leon
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Grocott, Bruce


Brotherton, Michael
Drayson, Burnaby
Grylls, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Dunn, James A.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Buck, Antony
Dunnett, Jack
Hannam, John


Budgen, Nick
Edelman, Maurice
Hardy, Peter


Bulmer, Esmond
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Harper, Joseph


Burden, F. A.
Edge, Geoff
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hart. Rt Hon Judith







Hastings, Stephen
Mahon, Simon
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Havers, Sir Michael
Marquand, David
Shersby, Michael


Hawkins, Paul
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hicks, Robert
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Holland, Philip
Mates, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Horam, John
Mather, Carol
Sims, Roger


Hordern, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mayhew, Patrick
Small, William


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Millan, Bruce
Speed, Keith


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Klibride)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hunter, Adam
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hurd, Douglas
Mills, Peter
Stanley, John


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Molyneaux, James
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stoddart, David


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stott, Roger


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Strang, Gavin


Jessel, Toby
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


John, Brynmor
Mutley, Rt Hon Frederick
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tapsell, Peter


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Neubert, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Noble, Mike
Tinn, James


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Normanton, Tom
Tomlinson, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ogden, Eric
Tomney, Frank


Judd, Frank
Osborn, John
Townsend, Cyril D.


Kaufman, Gerald
Ovenden, John
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Padley, Walter
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Palmer, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Park, George
Walden, Brian (B'ham,L'dyw'd)


Knox, David
Parker, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lamborn, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie
Ward, Michael


Lamont, Norman
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Watkins, David


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Perry, Ernest
Weitzman, David


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wellbeloved, James


Lawrence, Ivan
Phipps, Dr Colin
Wells, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
White, James (Pollok)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Radice, Giles
Wiggin, Jerry


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rathbone, Tim
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lomas, Kenneth
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Loveridge, John
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Luard, Evan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Luce, Richard
Rifkind, Malcolm
Winlerton, Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


McElhone, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Woodall, Alec


Macfarlane, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rodgers, William (Stockton)



Maclennan Robert
Rooker, J. W.



Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rose, Paul B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Mr. J. Hamilton and


Madel, David
Sandelson, Neville
Miss Margaret Jackson.


Magee, Bryan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Question accordingly negatived.

[Sir MYER GALPFRN in the Chair]

Amendments made: No. 37, in page 2, line 15, leave out
'order under section 1(4)'

and insert
'Order in Council under section 1'.

No. 38, in page 2, line 16, at end insert
'(except in so far as special provision is made in pursuance of section 1(4A) of this Act'.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

The Under-Secretary of State for Scot-land (Mr. Harry Ewing): I beg to move
Amendment No. 113, in page 2, line 32, at end insert—
'(1A) The council of any district in Scotland shall, if so requested by the council of the region in which that district is situated, place at the disposal of any officer of the latter council, for the purpose of assisting him in the discharge of any functions conferred on him in relation to the referendum by subsection (1) of this section, the services of officers employed by the former council'.
As the Committee is anxious to come to a decision on Amendment No. 49 on the way that votes are to be counted I will be brief.
This amendment merely seeks to regularise the position of district councils in


Scotland. Subsection 2(l)(b) of this clause lays responsibility for the counting of votes on regional officers. We are asking that where help is required from the district councils by the regions that help should be forthcoming. In order to regularise the position we are seeking to write into the legislation this amendment. I content myself with those remarks.

Amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: I should explain to the Committee, in view of the inquiries which have been made at the Table, that we are now coming to Amendment No. 49, for which we are all waiting.

Amendment proposed: No. 49, in page 2, line 38, at end insert
'and shall also certify for each total what number represents voting in accordance with any special provision made in pursuance of section 1(4A) of this Act and what numbers of the remainder represent respectively voting in each of the following areas, that is to say—

(i) in England and Wales, Greater London each county and the Isles of Scilly;
(ii) in Scotland, each region and each islands area; and
(iii) in Northern Ireland.

—[Mr. MacFarquhar.]

Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (a) in line 7, at end add 'each parliamentary constituency'.—[Mr. Powell.]

Amendment to the proposed amendment negatived.

Question put, That the proposed amendment be made:—

Mr. Emery: rose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. There can be no debate on this amendment. It was discussed with the group of amendments earlier in the day.

The Committee divided: Ayes 270, Noes 153.

Division No. 183.1
AYES
17.23 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Grylls, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Alison, Michael
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hampson, Dr Keith


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hannam, John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Dempsey, James
Harper, Joseph


Baker, Kenneth
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Banks, Robert
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hastings, Stephen


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Durant, Tony
Hatton, Frank


Bean, R. E.
Dykes, Hugh
Havers, Sir Michael


Beith, A. J.
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hawkins, Paul


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Henderson, Douglas


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Heseltine, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Ellis, John (Brlgg &amp; Scun)
Hooley, Frank


Blaker, Peter
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hordern, Peter


Body, Richard
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Booth, Albert
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Evans, John (Newton)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Bradley, Tom
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Huckfleld, Les


Brittan, Leon
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin
Hunter, Adam


Buchanan, Richard
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hurd, Douglas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Buck, Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Budgen, Nick
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Bulmer, Esmond
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Freud, Clement
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'drd)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fry, Peter
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Campbell, Ian
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Gilbert, Dr John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Kelley, Richard


Cartwright, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Kerr, Russell


Churchill, W. S.
Ginsburg, David
Lambie, David


Clemitson, Ivor
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lamond, James


Cockcroft, John
Golding, John
Lamont, Norman


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Goodhart, Philip
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Cope, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Lawrence, Ivan


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Lawson, Nigel


Crawford, Douglas
Gray, Hamish
Lee, John


Cryer, Bob
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Le Marchant, Spencer


Davidson, Arthur
Grist, Ian
Lever, Rt Hon Harold




Litterick, Tom
Percival, Ian
Swain, Thomas


Loyden, Eddie
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Luard, Evan
Phipps, Dr Colin
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Luce, Richard
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Temple-Morris, Peter


McElhone, Frank
Prior, Rt Hon James
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rathbone, Tim
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


MacGregor, John
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Reid, George
Thompson, George


Mackenzie, Gregor
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Maclennan Robert
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tierney, Sydney


Madden, Max
Richardson. Miss Jo
Tomlinson, John


Madel, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Torney, Tom


Marquand, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Marten, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Mather, Carol
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Viggers, Peter


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul B.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Meacher, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Mikardo, Ian
Royle, Sir Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Millan, Bruce
Ryman, John
Watt, Hamish


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Sainsbury, Tim
Weetch, Ken


Mills, Peter
Scott, Nicholas
Wellbeloved, James


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Andrew


Moate, Roger
Selby, Harry
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Molyneaux, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
White, James (Pollok)


Morro, Hector
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wiggin, Jerry


Montgomery, Fergus
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Small, William
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Neave, Airey
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Winterton, Nicholas


Newens, Stanley
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Newton, Tony
Spearing, Nigel
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Noble, Mike
Speed, Keith
Woodall, Alec


O'Halloran, Michael
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Woof, Robert


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Sproat, Iain
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stallard, A. W.
Younger, Hon George


Padley, Walter
Stanley, John



Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pardoe, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Dr. Edmund Marshall and


Parker, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. Robin F. Cook


Parry, Robert
Stradling Thomas, J.



Penhaligon, David
Strang, Gavin





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Archer, Peter
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Armstrong, Ernest
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Ashley, Jack
Edge, Geoff
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Emery, Peter
Judd, Frank


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
English, Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Bates, All
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Biffen, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bishop, E. S.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Knox, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ford, Ben
Lamborn Harry


Boardman H.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boltomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lomas, Kenneth


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
George, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodhew, Victor
McCrindle, Robert


Brotherton, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair
Macfarlane, Nell


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Carlisle, Mark
Grant, John (Islington C)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Grocott, Bruce
Magee, Bryan


Cormack, Patrick
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mahon, Simon


Costain, A. P.
Hardy, Peter
Marks, Kenneth


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Crawshaw, Richard
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mates, Michael


Cronin, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mawby, Ray


Crowder, F. P.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mayhew, Patrick


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hicks, Robert
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Horam, John
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Janner, Greville
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Delargy, Hugh
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Doig, Peter
Jessel, Toby
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Demand, J. D.
John, Brynmor
Nelson, Anthony


Drayson, Burnaby
Johnsor, James (Hull West)
Neubert, Michael







Normanton, Tom
Rowlands, Ted
Tapsell, Peter


Nott, John
Sandelson, Neville
Tebbit, Norman


Ogden, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Osborn, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tinn, James


Ovenden, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Tomney, Frank


Palmer, Arthur
Shersby, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D.


Park, George
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pearl, Rt Hon Fred
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Ward, Michael


Perry, Ernest
Skeet, T. H. H.
Watkins, David


Price, William (Rugby)
Spriggs, Leslie
Weitzman, David


Radice, Giles
Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitlock, William


Rifkind, Malcolm
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stoddart, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stott, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt and


Rooker, J. W.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Miss Margaret Jackson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 2, line 42, at end insert:
'(5) The Secretary of State shall arrange for the simultaneous announcement of the result of the referendum in both Houses of Parliament on the day after the counting of votes has been completed '.

The Deputy Chairman: With this we are to take New Clause 17—"Result of Referendum"— 'The counting officers shall inform the Secretary of State of the result of the consultative Referendum and the Secretary of State shall then inform the House of Commons of that result as soon as possible thereafter'.

Mr. Dykes: Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee could easily be forgiven for assuming that this is a rather minor matter, but I think that it is more than merely symbolic of the anxieties of many hon. Members who, irrespective of party, are extremely concerned about the wider issues—into which I shall not enter, for obvious reasons—of the referendum and its constitutional relationship to Parliament. I should be out of order if I were to go into those wider arguments and I shall deliberately and prudently refrain from so doing. They were dealt with substantially on Second Reading. But because they refer to details and deal with some of the more detailed aspects of the way in which the referendum will be operated and conducted if this legislation is passed I hope hon. Members will agree that it is incumbent on the Government and upon the Minister who will, I assume, reply to the debate, to give us assurances to allay the fears of many people.
The proposal here is for simultaneous announcements in both Houses of

Parliament on the day after the counting of the votes. It seems to be an absolutely straightforward concept. There has been speculation in the Press about, and, I think, reference at Question Time to, the announcement of the result being made in the House, but I feel it is important for this provision to be written into the Bill. for a number of reasons.
There are two or three important reasons for suggesting this provision. First, if there is overall anxiety about the constitutional perturbations that could be caused to Parliament by this measure, I think that one should take every opportunity to include in the Bill provisions to ensure that the overall effect of the weakening of Parliament's sovereign authority does not take place.
Secondly, the view has been expressed by some hon. Members—and I think that it is a valid concern—that they are worried about the details of the count. Irrespective of the amendments which have been voted upon, hon. Members are concerned about the more practical details arising from the final form of the legislation. They are concerned about the fact that this is a new venture for those who will be responsible for the counting, the sorting, the allocation, the registration and the certification of these Votes.
This is a complex matter. This country has a long tradition of being eminently accustomed to running General Elections and other elections without batting an eyelid and impressing no end of countries overseas by the way we do it, but this is a new venure, and for mechanistic, functional and practical reasons I hope that the Minister will be able to allay our anxieties.
I refrain from discussing the previous amendment, but one can imagine all sorts


of difficulties arising. There is the danger of Press speculation once the count has ended. We should like to know at what time the count will end. If the Minister, even in a speculative sense, can give an advance indication, it would help. There is the danger of all sorts of rumours circulating. Mislaid ballot boxes could give rise to their own kind of rumour.
It is important to consider the amendment not only in the general sense of the overall authority of Parliament, but in the specific sense that every hon. Member, whatever his views and his allegiance to the referendum, whatever his views on some of the details and bases of the count, and irrespective of what the Government call the sovereign populist view of the people as expressed in this unique, once-and-for-all referendum, will have the responsibility, one way or the other, to ensure that Parliament reaches its own decision on the referendum. Even those who are in favour of the referendum in a passionate sense, and there may still be some in the Committee despite the doubts that have arisen as the details have been debated, cannot gainsay that proposition.
This is not simply what the technicians sometimes call a probing amendment to see what the Government have to say. It is more than that, and it has the support of many hon. Members. It places Parliament in a proper perspective in relation to the referendum. It provides, I hope, acocrding to the efficiency of the public services, that guaranteed State security over the announcement of the overall result which should be secured and protected until Parliament has had the chance of hearing the result.
The amendment does not deal only factually with what might be regarded as a routine announcement it is an important amendment in symbolic and wider terms. I therefore hope that the Committee will ask the Minister to give us adequate indications, to put it mildly, of what the Govenment have in mind about announcing the result. If he does not. I am sure that hon. Members will seriously consider pressing the amendment, which I should like to do. I say no more than that. One might otherwise have too substantial a debate and tax the patience of you, Sir Myer, and other hon. Members. I am most anxious that the Minister deals

satisfactorily with this important amendment.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak now.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for tabling the amendment because it enables me to clear up one or two points. I assure him that there is every intention that a statement will be made in the House of Commons and a statement will be made at the same time in another place on the day after the count is concluded. Under the draft referendum order, published as a White Paper, the counting officer is required at the end of the count to notify the Prime Minister forthwith of the result that he has certified. It will then be for, in all probability, my right hon. Friend to make an announcement to the House of Commons at the earliest possible opportunity, and, in accordance with the normal practice, a statement will be made in another place at the same time. These arrangements will secure the substantial objective of the amendment.
There is, however, one matter on which I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman, and that is that no announcement should be made until the House of Commons has been informed. The hon. Gentleman asked when we expected the count to be completed. I cannot give a precise answer, not least because the Bill has just been amended, and that could affect the time at which the count might be completed. But I still expect that the final result will be through some time on the Sunday.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates the concern in parts of the country where there are deep feelings about these matters that the counting should proceed on Sunday and that a momentous announcement about the future of this country should be made on a day which is regarded as one set apart which should not be used for major constitutional announcements.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Fowler: I am well aware of the susceptibilities of those who believe that no activity should be undertaken on Sundays. However, inevitably counting will take place during the weekend, and


Saturday is an opportunity for some members of the community to raise similar objections. There are difficulties of a religious kind. No one suggests that anyone with such religious objections should be asked to count on a Sunday. However, the final result may well be available on the Sunday, and it would be a profound mistake if we were to prolong unnecessarily the period of suspense between the casting of votes and the final computation of the result. That could have dire effects well outside the scope of the referendum.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but can he say why the count will not be finished by Saturday night? I should have thought that it would have been under the new arrangement.

Mr. Fowler: That was why I chose my words carefully. It is hard to take account at such notice of the amendment which has just been passed. It could have that result. I should hate to commit myself, and that is why I said that I should still expect the result to be available on the Sunday. I hope that that will help to allay the fears of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I take his point that the Jewish community in the United Kingdom have their Sabbath on a Saturday, but they have, for all manner of reasons, accepted the position. They do not make a public protest that those who are not of their persuasion are asked to do anything different on their Sabbath. But the people of the persuasion to whom the Sunday Sabbath is sacrosanct are asking and always have asked, society to recognise their view, and sometimes the rights of the minority can be preferred to the rights of the majority without any of us suffering. Surely we could wait until Monday morning.

Mr. Fowler: If the count were nearing its conclusion, it would be exceedingly difficult to shut up shop at midnight on the Saturday, with all the security dangers that that would entail, and resume on Monday morning. Apart from the arguments which I adduced a moment ago, to which I attach great weight, I should not want the result to be delayed in such a

way as to damage unnecessarily the vital interests of this country by allowing a further 24 hours for speculation, possibly damaging speculation, about the result. Hon. Members will be aware of the consequences to which that could conceivably lead.
The great problem is that if the result is available at some point during the weekend it will be virtually impossible thereafter to guarantee that the result remains secret until such time as an announcement is made in the House of Commons and in another place. The amendment which has just been carried permits the counting to be done either at county or regional level or at national level but the declaration to be made on a county, regional and Northern Ireland basis.
The number of people involved in counting will be large. We cannot very well propose that after the count has been completed they should be locked up for a further 24 or 36 hours until 3.30 or beyond on Monday afternoon when my right hon. Friend makes his announcement to the House. Therefore, they must leave Earls Court, or wherever it may be. and there will then be little check on their activities. I do not suggest that any of the people selected would leak the result deliberately, but anyone who has spent some time in politics knows that some of our friends in the Press have remarkable techniques for wheedling information out of us, not least by talking to half-a-dozen people and putting half-a-dozen pieces of information together and making seven. That might well be the effect of trying to keep the result secret. It would be much the worst of all possible worlds if the result were, inaccurately or accurately, to leak before a proper declaration in due form had been made.
I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we can meet the spirit of his amendment—indeed, that we can meet the case without an amendment. I assure him that we can meet its precise wording, because the wording of the amendment does not require that there should not be a prior declaration before a statement is made in the House of Commons.

Mr. Ian Gow: If I understood the Minister correctly—will he kindly enlighten the Committee about


this—he said that there was an obligation on the counting officer to report the result of the referendum to the Prime Minister within 24 hours—on the following day, I think he said. Will he kindly draw the attention of the Committee to where those provisions are?

Mr. Fowler: That is in the White Paper containing the draft referendum order which I do not have in my hand, but if the hon. Gentleman will hand it to me I can no doubt find the relevant part for him or have it found for him.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I broadly agree with the Minister's remarks, but it would he for the convenience of the Committee if he would clarify one point now on behalf of the Government. He said that the amendment we had just passed will allow the count to be taken centrally and/or on a county basis but it had to be declared on a county basis. Would it not be for the convenience of the Committee that he should now state plainly that, in view of the amendment we have just passed, it would be obviously right that the count should take place entirely on a county basis and that all the votes should not have to be brought to London?

Mr. Fowler: No. It would be unwise of me to give a snap reaction to an amendment which has just been carried. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that an announcement will be made just as rapidly as possible about the effect of the amendment which has just been carried. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not want to press me too hard on that because of the difficulty, which has been explained more than once, which can occur in Scotland. It is a real difficulty. I have every sympathy with those who will be responsible for conducting the poll in Scotland on behalf of the regional authorities when they come into active existence, if I can so call it, only some three weeks before polling day. To ask that they should also count the votes may be practical and it may be sensible, but it may not, and I would not at present want to commit myself. There may also be difficulties in parts of England, for the simple reason that we have never before

conducted a count on a county basis. Even county council elections are held on an electoral division basis.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I am sorry to come back to the Minister on this, but although in Scotland there may be a difficulty about registration and that sort of thing there may not be any serious difficulty about counting the votes.
The amendment has been on the Notice Paper for some time. The Government have had a long time to think about it. Surely they must have made some contingency plans in case it was carried. The suggestion that they will have to go into some tremendous confabulation tonight and announce a decision tomorrow is not plausible.

Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman must not guy what I said. I did not say that the Government would go into some confabulation tonight and come out with a solution tomorrow morning rather like producing a rabbit out of a hat. This problem has, of course, been the subject of ongoing consideration and there is not an absolutely crystal-clear answer.

Mr. Beith: I understand the difficulties to which the Minister is referring. I hope that he will accept that the difficulties in regard to the Sunday and the problem of trying to keep the result of the count secret would be eased if the count were conducted on a county basis and if declarations were made in each county. It seems likely that most of the counts could be completed by Saturday. If the Government will yield on this point they will be helped in both respects. I do not expect the Minister to give a snap response now, but I hope that he will realise that a count on a county basis would be an advantage from the Sunday point of view as well.

Mr. Fowler: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It had already occurred to me. I think that may well be the case.
To conclude, I greatly hope that the hon. Member will accept that we meet the spirit of what he requires but that we cannot meet every detail of it and that he will not press the amendment to a Division.

Dr. Alan Glyn: This is an important point. Bearing in mind the security point, if there were a fire or other major event centrally all the votes would be destroyed. If the count took place in the counties such a catastrophe would be much less likely.

Mr. Fowler: We might conceivably run the risk of straying out of order if we continued to discuss the last amendment rather than this one. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that point will be borne in mind.

Mr. Gow: I am indebted to the Minister for drawing my attention to the provisions on page 23 of the White Paper which contains the draft order. I wish to support the amendment and to propound new Clause 17. The Committee's attention should be directed to the procedure laid down in the order, a draft of which it has before it. It seems that the provision that the counting officer shall
forthwith notify the First Lord of the Treasury of the matters to be certified in accordance with Section 2(3) of the Referendum Act
is not of itself sufficient to provide for the manner in which the declaration of the result of this unique consultation is to be made.
We need to be more specific, for three principal reasons. There is no difficulty at General Elections about declaring, the result of an election in a constituency within a very short time of the votes being counted. The possibility of rumours to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred is there, but is limited. Even when there are recounts we usually manage, even in seats held by the Liberal Party, to conclude our recounts within a matter of not more than four or five hours anyway.
In cases where we do not have the well-tried procedure of the constituency count—a procedure for which I voted a a short time ago—the declaration must be made in the House of Commons. As I understand page 23 and the draft order, the likelihood is, despite what the Minister said, that the announcement will not be made to the House of Commons at all. I greatly fear that as soon as the counting officer has reported to the Prime Minister the result of the referendum a statement will be issued from No. 10

Downing Street as to the figures that have been certified to the Prime Minister by the counting officer.

Mr. Ridley: Surely now that the count is to be conducted on a county basis it will be impossible to believe that a county which counts early will not somehow release the result and that results will come piecemeal as each county reports. It would be difficult to report the result of each county to the Prime Minister. If that happened he would have a rather busy weekend on the telephone, which I would regret.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has made a fascinating intervention. I fear that the effect of the earlier amendment will be that, though the results of the referendum will be declared county by county, the Government will still count nationally; they will have all the ballot boxes sent to London but will nevertheless announce the verdict county by county. That is what I fear the Government are going to do. I only hope that I am wrong about this. No doubt, the Minister, who will have thought about this, will be able to tell us.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I hope that we shall not spend too much time on the last amendment while discussing this one. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address himself to the practical problem of keeping the results, whether county or national, confidential till a statement is made to the House.

Mr. Gow: It would be of great assistance to the Committee if the Minister could clear up this point. Is it the intention of the Government, following the passing of this amendment, that the counting shall be done at one central point or county by county?

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I have already dealt with that point at some considerable length. I have told the Committee that I cannot possibly make a statement some 20 minutes after the amendment has been carried. We shall make a statement about it at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Gow: I think the Committee is entitled to say to the Minister that the


Government should have thought this one through. The forethought of the Government should at least have entertained the possibility that the amendment would he carried against the advice of the Lord President. After all, if the Lord President was inviting us to reject the amendment it was a fairly safe assumption that the amendment would be carried. I would have thought that that possibility would not have been lost on the Government.
Whether the counting is to be done county by county or whether, as I fear, it is still to be done centrally, it seems to me to be a further diminution of the importance of the House of Commons and of another place that we should have, as I fear we shall have, a statement issued from 10 Downing Street. That would pander to the megalomania of the Prime Minister, who would be able to announce it from Downing Street instead of from the Dispatch Box where he would face Questions from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. That is the position. It derogates from the importance and supremacy of the House of Commons.
The second reason why I believe we ought to press the amendment is that I think the Government have not, as indeed the Minister's answer made clear a moment ago, thought this matter through. The Bill fails to make provision for the method of the declaration, a provision which is made specifically for General Elections. That is a glaring omission from the Bill.
Finally I say this to the Government. The question of an authoritative statement to the House at the earliest possible moment after the certification by the counting officer is one of the utmost constitutional importance. I foresee grave damage being done unless there is an obligation laid upon the Government to go to the House at the earliest possible moment after the counting officer has issued his certificate.

Mr. Emery: I add my small voice in commenting on the admirable way in which this amendment has been moved. It has much more importance than the Government appear to realise. When we debate the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill" I shall try to give

the Government some advice about the action they should take now that the last amendment has been carried against the Government's advice. However, I think it would be out of order for me to do so on this amendment, and I shall refrain even from approaching the area of being out of order.
On the importance of the statement being made in this House, I would prefer the first actual knowledge of the result to be imparted in this House if it is in any way possible.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): So would we all.

Mr. Emery: I am glad to hear the Minister indicate that that is what the Government would like. I should like the Government to examine whether that is within their power. If there is a central count, the actual totalling of the final tallies could easily be done by a very small number of people. In other words, there could be a sub-division of tallies—nothing geographical, nothing to do with the actual areas of the balloting, but a division of tallies into 10 or a dozen different sub-divisions. Only a few people, including scrutineers, would actually know the result of the final bringing together of those sub-divisions.
I accept the Minister's view that if the result were to be known by thousands of people—this is what might be involved if there were a central count—it would be impossible to keep it secure, but if it were known by only a few people the aspect of security would be greatly diminished and the Minister's argument would have to be considered much more closely. As one of the Minister's junior colleagues has indicated that the Government would like to be able to make the statement first in this House, that argument should be examined even more fully than it has been so far.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that fiction can be just as damaging as fact, and that rumour and speculation for 48 hours about a result that was known to have been reached could be exceedingly damaging?

Mr. Emery: Yes, I certainly accept that. It could be damaging, particularly in financial circles and across the international money markets. However, there


will be a number of days, and I believe that speculation against the pound will actually be on the Friday or the Thursday—polling day. There will not be very much speculation on the Saturday night or Sunday. The markets are closed at that time. Therefore, that aspect of speculation to which the hon. Gentleman refers is much less likely to be damaging over the weekend than in midweek. I accept the argument, but I believe the Government ought to consider this point rather more closely, because the security argument does not necessarily hold water.
I thank the Minister, as I am sure do my hon. Friends, for his assurance, because it went some way to meeting the point which some of us have put forward. However, I am not certain that the assurance goes far enough. I also have had to sit on the opposite side of the House, and I know that in times of great stress assurances which may have been given to the House are not necessarily absolutely binding. Let us take the possibility that, contrary to all the thinking of the Prime Minister, the country rejected his advice by a very small minority and on a small vote. It might be a great problem for him. To spell out in legislation that on the first day that the House sat after the count a statement would be made would be a very good exercise of discipline, not only in making the Prime Minister come here but on all the Departments which will have to prepare the briefing for the Prime Minister to enable him to answer the mass of questions which would be bound to arise should the vote be in the negative.
I come to the main point, which has not been raised by either of the two previous Opposition speakers. I want further assurances from the Minister. I hope that it is unlikely—but obviously some Ministers will hope that it is likely—that the country will reject the Prime Minister's wishes. In those circumstances there will be immense speculation throughout Europe as to how and when our withdrawal will be brought about. That speculation will be much more damaging than any speculation in the 48 hours before the result.
In addition to having a statement about the announcement of the result, the House will want to question fully and comprehensively the way in which the Government will have to act if the result is

against their recommendation. If it is affirmative, we have no further worries. However, it is a matter of chance. There are only two alternatives—"Yes" or "No". If it happens to be "No", industries, the House, the money markets and diplomatic circles will all want to know a host of details, and they will want to know them immediately.
It will be no good the Prime Minister or anyone else telling the House, as the Minister has had to say today, "We have not been able to consider the result of a certain amendment which has been passed against Government advice". The fall-back position must have been thought out and planned for, so that none of these problems arise.
If the decision goes against all the advice that I would give for our staying in Europe, the problems that will face the Government will not be satisfactorily dealt with if they consider them in depth and detail only after or during the period of the counting or the announcement of the result. This is a real worry affecting not only Parliament, but the whole economy of the country. The Government must think this out clearly.
I hope that the Minister can give us specific assurances on those points. If he cannot, I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment that has been so admirably moved.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Having heard the arguments, I am bound to add my slight weight in their support. The Minister has to satisfy three criteria. The first, to which he has already alluded, is the speed with which the result can be officially declared. We obviously understand that fully. The second is the security between the closure of the poll and the completion of the count. Thirdly, he must take due note that this is a unique situation in which the authority of the Government and the House is critically involved.
The result, either at constituency or county level, will not mean a change in representation or produce a certain course of action. One of the most important features of the referendum is that it is advisory and binding on the Government but not on the House. Therefore, it is critical that the House should be the first public forum in which the announcement


of this unique declaration of national intent should be made.
I shall briefly comment on the two aspects of speed and security. Obviously, I understand the Minister's reluctance to comment upon the consequences of the amendment just passed. If there is to be a county-by-county count or a count by regions, the problems of both timing and security become critical. On timing, one can foresee that many counties will complete their task rapidly whilst many which are rural and in difficult geographical positions will be late. There will be a real problem about timing and the coordination of results.

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that if, as I hope, the counting is done within each county, the figures for each area should be declared as the individual counts are completed, as was done in the Norwegian referendum?

Mr. Shaw: That may well be so, but I am not entirely satisfied that it would be in the best interests of the House. We should be concerned about the totality of the vote. I am committed to the wisdom of a national count, although I fully understand the feelings of my hon. Friends in this area, where there are great divisions of opinion.
In terms of security, I hesitate to think what might be the result if there were a multiplicity of counting and the result could be easily predicted by the media by means of various devices. I believe that the whole explosion of a quantified result will take place early upon the Saturday in question.
If this is a unique situation it demands unique handling by the Government. In so far as the House is critically involved, it is only right that, through the offices of the Prime Minister, the first announcement of the total result should be in the House. If any other provision is made in the accumulation of the count, or even if the counting is by regions, or by county, particular regard should be paid to preventing the totality becoming published to the nation until the House has had an opportunity to hear it at first hand.
I do not see that it is a matter of great significance whether the result is announced on the Sunday or the Monday after the Thursday on which the voting

takes place. I do not believe that that delay will be damaging to any of the major economic or financial factors involved. What is much more damaging to us here is that the House is apparently not to be given the first opportunity to hear the result.

Mr. William Hamilton: I become more and more distressed as each hour passes in this increasingly disgraceful shambles and farce. It would be better acted at the other end of Whitehall. It is clear that the Government do not have a clue what they are doing, particularly after the acceptance of the last amendment. The fact that the votes will be counted at county level will create enormous difficulties in Scotland which have not been foreseen by the Government. We shall be within three weeks of our reorganisation. There is enough chaos in Scottish local government now one way and another.

Mr. Gow: Is it not the fact that in Scotland the votes are to be counted not by county but, in accordance with the terms of the amendment, by each region and islands area?

Mr. Hamilton: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The existing Fife county becomes on 16th May the Fife region, which includes Kirkcaldy and Dunfermline, big burghs and small burghs. They are all juggling around, and a lot of skulduggery is going on. On top of that, we are to have this shambles imposed upon us.
What are we up to? I do not know whether the exact wording of the amendment and the new clause is right, but, however it is done, the Prime Minister must come here and face the music, Whatever the result, he must come here and get into the kitchen.
There has been hardly a debate on the matter in which the word "unique" has not been used. If it is a unique occasion and the result is likely to come through at 3 p.m. or even 3 a.m. on a Sunday, each Member should be told that on Saturday he must stand by his phone and that at 3 o'clock on Sunday morning we may all be called to the House to sit on Sunday morning—[An HON. MEMBER: "And say our prayers."]—maybe we shall take Holy Communion first—and


then my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will declare the result.
We all know what will happen. Speculation has already started in the money markets, and will continue for the next five or six weeks because of this exercise.
The "Wee Frees" in Scotland will object to a Sunday announcement, but votes are counted and results declared in the Western Isles on the Sabbath. Activities of one kind or another take place in the Western Isles that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) might shut his eyes to. We all know what goes on on the Sabbath in the North of Scotland, though the people concerned must not enjoy it, or admit enjoying it.
It is not good enough for my hon. Friend the Minister to say that the Government will make a statement on the matter as soon as possible. Ministers will not have a confab tonight. How will it be done—by exorcism? Who will make the inspired statement, and how will it be arrived at? May we be told when the momentous decision will be announced to the House? Will it be in the course of the debates on the Bill or in a statement at 3.30 p.m. tomorrow?
I hope that the Government will accept the principle that however and whenever the national result is declared it will be done here, by the Prime Minister, whether on Saturday, Sunday or Guy Fawkes Day.

Mr. Buchan: I have no great anxiety about whether the result is declared inside or outside the House. What I am concerned about is that we have a correct and just result.
After the acceptance of the previous amendment, I want to know what that amendment meant before we come to a decision on the one before us. There is a certain anxiety in the Chamber about its meaning.
May we be assured that there will be a separate count in the areas, and a separate declaration of that count—in other words, that we shall not have counts brought down in silence to Earls Court to be added together and announced there? The decision, the mood and the feeling of the Committee half an hour ago were in favour of counts in the regions. Before we proceed on this amendment it would be as well for my

hon. Friend the Minister to clear up this point before any more damage is done.

[Sir STEPHEN MCADDEN in the Chair]

Mr. Dykes: When I moved the amendment I was under the total misapprehension that it was reasonably straightforward, basic and rather routine, and that the Government would deal with it satisfactorily. I had thought that the Minister, when he was able to concentrate on it—which he is not able to do now since he is engaged in conversation with the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), his unofficial PPS in row 3 below the Gangway—would deal with it in a satisfactory manner and would give the Committee an assurance. I was seeking to be scrupulously fair by deliberately refraining from mentioning the previous amendment dealing with the count on a county basis. I thought that this was a minor amendment in the totality of the Bill and that the Government would accept it. I believe that it was one of the first amendments to be tabled, and that is borne out if one can judge by the number allocated to it. The Government have, therefore, had time to consider it.
What the hon. Member for Fife. Central (Mr. Hamilton) said will be echoed in all parts of the Committee. Throughout, the Government have shown an incredibly casual attitude to this business and are persisting in that attitude in respect of this and other amendments. I am surprised at that because I had expected a slightly different response from the Minister. But perhaps he is trying to emulate the Prime Minister, believing that the combination of being a cheeky chappie and eminently casual is the best way of dealing with matters in the House or on this unique referendum exercise.
I think that I am justified in asking the Minister to say a little more. He cannot leave the matter at this stage. It seems that there may or may not be a statement in the House. The Minister said that we should not worry but leave it to him because he might come back with an idea, although he was not sure. The Government have been asked to make the announcement first in the House of Lords and the House of Commons simultaneously. Is the Minister merely paying lip-service to this request and saying that it is too difficult to give any


assurance or even a clear indication of what the Government have in mind? If so, that is disappointing and offensive to the Committee. We need to he reassured that the whole curious exercise that the Government are indulging in on the referendum will not lead to a diminution of the authority of the House. I see that the Minister is unable to concentrate yet again since he is now in conference with the Government Chief Whip.
The Government originally had in mind holding the referendum on a Monday or Tuesday so that it would take virtually the whole of the rest of the week to do the count. Now they have been advised by civil servants in the Department of the Environment, the Lord President's office and other Departments that the count can be carried out more quickly irrespective of its physical basis. The referendum has been switched to a Thursday, but even that date is not firm because the Bill is not yet law.
8.30 p.m.
Is the Minister prepared to come back to us with a much more precise indication of what he has in mind? He has said that there will be a statement in due course. He has said that although the Government would like the announcement to be made in the House there are difficulties because of the gap between the physical completion of the count and, for example, certification by the national counting officer. He also referred to the transmission of the message to the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State.
It is not enough for the Minister to say that he will come along as soon as possible, that he hopes to do so but he cannot make a promise to do so. Maybe he will be able to say that he will return with a definitive assurance on Report, an assurance that will spell out clearly and unequivocally what the Government intend.
Many people outside the House will be concerned by the present position. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has put the additional points more eloquently than I could put them. In addition, many hon. Members wish the Minister to elaborate and to allay the deep-seated suspicion that the Government are continuing to cock a

snoot at hon. Members not only on the referendum but on other issues. People outside the House would legitimately say in response to the casual reply that we have had from the Minister "Well, why not delay the final stages of the count so that they go into the Monday morning, so that the count is completed at 12 noon on Monday, a couple of hours before the announcement is made in the House?".
Is Sunday the appropriate time to make the announcement? There are religious reasons for claiming that it is not. That in itself is a strong point. Further, there might be little time to complete the count. I am not dogmatically adhering to that point. All I am saying is that the Minister should come back to the House.
I think that it would be wrong for all sorts of reasons to press the amendment. I say that because I think that this is a matter that could be much better dealt with by order than by amendment to the Bill. To some extent, therefore, it is a symbolic amendment and a probing amendment, but as I said when I introduced it, it goes beyond that. That is why I say that the Minister should come back with more information. If he says that he is unable to do so I must, with reluctance, press the amendment. I think that many hon. Members are deeply unhappy about the way in which the Minister has responded so far.
I appreciate that there are functional and technical problems in terms of the count. It is a unique exercise. By definition General Election results cannot be announced in the House, but this is a unique exercise outside the functional ambit of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and Parliament as a whole. That is an even stronger reason for the announcement to be made in this House by the Prime Minister. The Minister must say more before we can say that we accept what he has said.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: When the hon. Gentleman made his first speech in this debate I thought that he had made a very good speech with serious intent. Having listened to his second speech I now have some doubts. I carefully explained to the Committee the overwhelming difficulty of locking up the result for 36 or 48 hours until the Prime Minister can make an announcement in


the House. I explained that it was impossible to guarantee security of the result. Any hon. Member who thinks of trying to keep secrets in the House will know perfectly well that that is true. For instance, let us consider the number of people who must be involved in the counting, however it is done.
I explained carefully that there would be great danger of damaging speculation in both meanings of the word. That could he as much fed by fiction as by fact. I hope that these points will be taken seriously by Conservative Members. To play with the currency of the country would be a very serious matter.

Mr. Giles Shaw: What really would be the consequence of the result not being made available on the Sunday? I accept that we have a large circulation of Sunday media. The Sunday papers are printed on Saturdays and are distributed on Saturday afternoons and evenings. Is the Minister genuinely suggesting that the damage which might result if the result were announced on the Monday would be so great as to warrant the Government saying "We must announce the result on the Sunday. We cannot wait until normal hours on Monday?"

Mr. Fowler: We also have radio and television through which the result could leak. There are Monday morning newspapers and the exchanges are open long before the Prime Minister could come to the House at 3.30 p.m. on a Monday. It would be singularly dangerous to follow that course of action.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) asked me why there were no provisions about a declaration of secrecy. He will see on page 26 of the referendum order that provisions are made to apply Regulation 42 of the Representation of the People Regulations 1974. I have been asked to repeat and relate to this clause what my right hon. Friend said at some length on the previous clause.
I cannot make an announcement tonight about the effect of a decision recently taken upon the time of the declaration of the result. I cannot do that for reasons well explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). He described the difficulties of the new Scottish regional authorities.

It would be silly of us to seek to impose a burden upon those authorities which they could not stand. We are conducting investigations to determine the limit of the capabilities of those authorities in coping with the referendum.
That was said by my right hon. Friend when he explained the purport of an earlier amendment accepted by the Committee a little time ago. He pointed out that that amendment made it possible for both the count and the declaration to be made by counties in England, regions in Scotland, island authorities and Northern Ireland as a whole, or, alternatively, for the votes to be counted centrally but still to be announced in the former way. That is the method on which we have to decide before we know exactly when the result is likely to be available and how the result can best be announced.
I express every sympathy with the intention behind this amendment. I share the view of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) that, if it had been possible so to arrange it without any danger of the result leaking or without the possibility of damaging speculation, it would have been better for the Prime Minister to make the first announcement of the result in the House. There are grave risks inherent in a procedure such as that, to which I could not conceivably commit the Government.

Mr. Dykes: I hope the Minister will be assured that people are not unaware of the Government's difficulties. As I have remarked already, the putative time for the count seems to have varied enormously, from the early, speculative days to the more concrete information which the Government are now amassing. Since the time has seemingly grown shorter in recent weeks, could there not conceivably be difficulties that would make the counting period longer? Can the hon. Gentleman be so sure that there will be this weekend gap?

Mr. Fowler: No, clearly I cannot. It is not inconceivable—though it is no more than a logical possibility—that with recounts we could get no result within 10 days; but I do not think that is likely. The probable impact of the amendment that has been carried will be either to leave the count no longer than it would


have been or, perhaps, to shorten the period it would take; certainly not to lengthen that period by a significant amount.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the Minister has resumed his seat. We cannot go on like this.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The Minister seems greatly to have reinforced the point made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) about the complete uncertainty in which Parliament has been left as to when, how and under what circumstances it will be able to discuss the consequences of the amendment which has just been agreed. I ask the Minister to take into account the fact that the uncertainty of timing is one of the dangers surrounding the announcement.
If there is a possibility that the result will be first made known on a weekday at a time when the House of Commons is sitting, there is an overwhelming case for the result to be announced nationally through Parliament. This very fact adds weight and dimension to the amendment. If there is doubt as to what time and under what circumstances the result will be announced, that of itself will be disturbing to international markets, and the Government should give serious consideration to it. It will create uncertainty. There will be speculation, not necessarily only about the result, but about the time when it will be forthcoming. On the 6 o'clock news on the Saturday we may be told that the latest indications are that there may be a result by 10 o'clock that night.
A sort of frenzied interest, not only in the result, but when it will be announced, could develop unless we are given an indication of a more orthodox way—determined in advance—in which it could be announced to the country. This overwhelmingly corroborates the meaning behind my hon. Friend's amendment, that not only does it derogate from the powers and position of the House of Commons in assessing the result but it puts Parliament in an almost impossible situation in relation to the country, because neither Parliament nor the country knows when this momentous decision will be announced.

I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to my suggestion.

Sir Michael Havers: It may assist the Committee, and in particular the Minister, if I say that it is the Opposition's intention to put down an amendment which, if selected, will provide for a count in each area provided in the amendment which the Committee has accepted. If the amendment is selected tomorrow, on Report, we shall be able to find out from the Minister —and I am warning him now—how long it will take to count the votes in the counties, and in Greater London, which will take the longest of all. We shall then be able to see whether the figure could be available to the returning officer when the House is sitting and thereby perhaps get round the problem.

Mr. Emery: The easiest way out of the impasse in which we find ourselves might be if my hon. Friend saw fit to withdraw his amendment and table it on Report. By that stage the position of the Government on my hon. and learned Friend's amendment would be more clearly known. I am certain that the Chair will take this closely into consideration in any selection.
I understood that we would withdraw the amendment only in that situation, and then, if we found ourselves in the unhappy position of not getting any further or extra information from the Government, we would have to pursue this matter tomorrow on Report. It is only one way around the problem, but it might be one way of easing the position of a rather unfortunate junior Minister who obviously cannot give a decision until it has been cleared by his lords and masters. I realise the difficulties in which he must find himself, and I am attempting to help him and the Government out of a rather difficult impasse.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) for constructive suggestions, which show once again that it is from the Opposition that the assistance to the Government is provided, with the intervention of certain distinguished and hon. Members on the Government side.
If my hon. Friends could assume that the Minister, who seemed to be indicating physically that he was rather agreeing with the suggestion based on the announcement of my hon. and learned Friend about an Opposition amendment on Report, would indicate that an announcement will be made tomorrow giving us clear information about the timetable, about when the count will be completed and all that flows from that, it would be possible for me to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Temporary Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the amendment be withdrawn?

Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Sir Stephen. I obviously misunderstood my hon. Friend. I thought that he was not at that stage withdrawing the amendment but was suggesting that it could be withdrawn if he could have some assurance from the Minister.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I take the same point, and I was about to rise to speak. I certainly assure hon. Gentleman that when we debate tomorrow the amendment which the Opposition have tabled I shall make every effort to give the fullest information possible by then of the effect of carrying that amendment and of the effect on the timetable of the amendment that has been carried today.

Mr. Gow: The question arises whether we should press new Clause 17 to a Division. Obviously we express our sympathy towards the Minister of State, who has been put in a very difficult position.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The question of pressing new Clause 17 to a Division does not arise at this stage of the proceedings.

Mr. Gow: I merely want to ask the Minister of State to take this into consideration. He has said that the reason why the Prime Minister may not be able himself to announce the decision of the referendum in this Chamber is the speculation that might arise between polling day and the declaration. My point is that speculation is continuing all the time. It will continue from now until 5th June, from now right through polling day and from now until the count is declared, whether that declaration is made in this Chamber 24 hours afterwards or whether

the announcement is made in a television broadcast from No. 10 Downing Street by the Prime Minister.
The speculation and the damage to sterling is going on all the time. The Minister knows that already the pound has fallen to its lowest ever rate against other currencies and that the dollar premium has now reached the unprecedented level of over 100 per cent. If he believes that even further damage can be done by delaying the announcement for a further 24 hours, I must tell him that that is not the way in which these things happen. The damage has been done by the referendum. If he wants to stop that damage he should withdraw the Bill.

Mr. Dykes: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Emery: There are one or two points with which I should like the Minister to deal. Although when discussing the last amendment we had a quite positive debate on the amendment which was passed by the Committee this evening, it would be wrong of me to suggest that it was out of order that that debate should have taken place. It seems to me that it is on the Question "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill" that questions are best posed to the Minister on the position about the new amendment.
The Minister has given us the assurance—I thank him in advance—that when that amendment, notice of which was given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), is debated tomorrow, or whenever the Report stage is taken, we shall definitely have an answer from the Government. May I therefore give him some advice? It may well be that that advice will be contrary to that which he will receive from the Opposition Front Bench.
I wish to ensure that in the period between the conclusion of the polling and the announcement of the result of the count there is not a massive trial by television of that result. I can see television producers organising a marvellous referendum programme, with a host of pundits making statements varying from one


extreme to the other. Many of those statements might be to the detriment of the economic and financial position of the United Kingdom until the result is announced. I therefore urge the Government to hold steady.
It has been made clear that the announcement of the county and area results will be made at the time when the result of the final count is announced. If that is not the case we cannot avoid the production of brilliant television programmes. As each result comes in the television cameras will be on the steps of county hall. The returning officer will make a statement. The result will be declared and the local dignitaries supporting either side of the case will give their views on the effect of the result in, for instance, Clackmannan or St. Ives. That is not ideal. I strongly urge the Government to ensure that that does not happen. Otherwise we shall find ourselves in the damaging position which the Minister wishes to avoid.
The only way in which that situation can be avoided is to do the counting centrally. If the counting is to be done on a regional or county basis, I do not see how we can prevent the result leaking out, even if the Government give instructions that there should be no immediate local announcement. If the Minister thinks that he cannot ensure the security of a single count, how can he ensure the security of up to 74 counts? That is an impossible situation.
Some hon. Members have advocated local counts in the interests of speed and perhaps greater accuracy. However, if the announcements of results are made locally we shall find ourselves in a situation which I urge must be avoided. As the results come in from the South-East people will see a swing perhaps in favour of staying in and suddenly there will be an announcement from Ireland, and the situation may be reversed. This type of trial by television could be most damaging to the economy, particularly if it is to be carried on over more than 24 hours, as is possible in certain areas. I am sure that Treasury Ministers particularly will want to avoid that.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of State, the Leader of the House, or whoever has to reach a decision on the interpretation of the count under the new provisions, to

undertake that Treasury Ministers will be consulted on this specific matter.
I see that the powers given to counting officers, set out in subsections (2) and (4), provide that certain payments may be made. At what level are those payments envisaged to be made? Will they be at the same level as at a General Election?
I urge the Minister, for the sake of greater accuracy and speed, to consider recruiting more professional counting agents than are sometimes recruited by returning officers at certain elections. I suggest that, wherever possible, bank clerks should be recruited. I am certain that the Minister appreciates from his own experience—if he has no experience of this matter, his Department certainly has—that the speed of the count depends considerably on the ability and experience of the counting agents in handling pieces of paper. I refer to bank clerks particularly, because they are used to handling notes, which are often about the size of voting papers.
Certain counties, as I know to my detriment, normally recruit amateurs to do the counting. The speed of counting can vary by as much as two or three hours, comparing the counting done by amateurs with that done by professionals. A variation of two or three hours with 60,000 or 70,000 votes, multiplied by the numbers that we hope there will be in the referendum, can make a major difference to the speed with which the decision could be reached.
Therefore, I suggest that a payment slightly greater than that which is normally allowed under parliamentary regulations should be made. In that way we could recruit the type of person to whom I have referred.
Although I am very much against the referendum generally, my remarks are intended to draw attention to the organisation which will be needed to carry through this obnoxious process, if and when it reaches the statute book, and to indicate that it should be as efficient as possible.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I am delighted to find myself in total agreement with the first point made by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). As my right hon. Friend said during the debate on where the count should take place, one of the


disadvantages of having separate announcements—county by county or constituency by constituency makes very little difference up and down the realm —is that they are not co-ordinated, and so we have precisely the television "Grand National" presentation to which the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention. That is highly undesirable.
The hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) told the Committee that the Opposition are tabling an amendment for consideration on Report requiring the count to be conducted by counties. I hope that when he moves the amendment he will bear in mind the difficulties to which his hon. Friend has so rightly alluded.

Sir Michael Havers: I showed the Minister a draft of the proposed amendment. I did not have much opportunity to consider it, and I was suggesting in that draft not that the announcement should be by counties but that the count should be by counties, which would avoid the difficulties of moving all these boxes to London.

Mr. Fowler: We come back to the difficulties that were mentioned during the previous debate. It is almost inconceivable that we should be able to maintain security, and there is no doubt that there will be massive security problems. The clause, as amended, therefore poses some difficulty for us in maintaining our normal standards of secrecy at elections and avoiding any risk of dangerous speculation as we await the final result, because it is clear that some of the remoter areas will give us their results very much later than will some of the more compact and densely populated areas.
Coming now to the other two points made by the hon. Gentleman, I undertake to bear in mind his suggestion that where possible we should recruit those who are experienced in counting. My electoral experience—I have fought many elections at all levels and have been an agent in others—suggests that the hon. Gentleman is right, and we shall do everything we can to ensure that those who are recruited to count will be able to give us a rapid result and an accurate one.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

GRANTS TOWARDS COST OF CAMPAIGN

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 3, line 6, leave out £125.000' and insert £500,000'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this amendment we are taking the following:

Amendment No. 57, in page 3, line 6, leave out '£125,000' and insert '£250,000'.

Amendment No. 58, in page 3, line 7, leave out 'affiliated to' and insert 'associated with'.

Mr. Buchan: I am pleased that we have reached this stage in our deliberations. We have moved fairly rapidly, and there are a number of important points about the money available to both sides in this campaign.
I think that all hon. Members are coming to the view that we must accept the result of this referendum though we may wish to express opinions about it afterwards, but they are taking that view with the proviso that the referendum must be fought with equal advantage to both sides. The great anxiety of those who have been active in the campaign and know what has been going on on over the past few weeks is that the referendum is not being fought fairly, and I want to discuss some of the problems which the Government must face and partially solve by accepting the amendment.
The first piece of evidence is one which I have sought through the Chancellor. This is the declaration by the European Movement. It is a distinguished body, and its chief sponsors are the leaders of the three main political parties—the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who no doubt will be replaced by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). The chairman is given as Lord Harlech and the vice-chairman as Lord Gladwyn.
It is a highly distinguished and respectable, and therefore responsible, body. In its name a document called "Guidelines for raising money for the campaign" was issued. Having advised people not to


spend time holding bazaars and fetes or giving lavish dinner parties, it continued:
The obvious and most likely section of the local community who would be in a position to donate money to our cause are the local businessmen involved in trade and commerce".
That has written off 90 per cent, of the British people. The pro-Marketeers do not want to approach the people; they want the support of the business men involved in trade and commerce. The document continued:
The reasons behind our assumptions are:
(a) that they are more likely to be aware of the advantages of our staving in the EEC and they are usually prepared to support a cause"—
here is a nice moral touch—
which is in the interests of their own business;
(b) their ability to donate money"—
I will accept that—
which being in support of their business interests, can be written off as a genuine expense.
In other words, the document is saying that the costs of the pro-Market campaign can be subscribed by the business and industrial interests of this country and paid for by the ordinary workers, who are the taxpayers.
This is very near to corruption. Every pro-Market poster should bear a Government health warning saying, "Seventy per cent. of the cost of this poster is being paid by you, the taxpayer". Either it means that the ordinary people are paying for 70 per cent. of the pro-Market campaign, or it is not true.
I doubted whether it was true and therefore I investigated the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He replied:
The law is that in computing profits for tax purposes, no deduction is allowed for expenditure which is not wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business. The treatment of donations or subscriptions to organisations campaigning for or against the EEC depends on the facts of each individual case in the light of this rule.… I can say, however, that the European Movement are not justified in assuming that businesses will he able to set donations to them against tax ".
This becomes a serious matter. The Chancellor is saying that as a general rule such expenses cannot be set against tax, and the European Movement, with its distinguished patrons, including the

Prime Minister, is telling business and industry that they will receive tax relief.

Mr. Hurd: I understand that in the past contributions to the European Movement have been allowed for tax and that whether this precedent continues to apply in present circumstances is a matter between the firm concerned and the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is not as naive as that. I shall deal with the first point later, because he is right about it. His deduction is completely wrong.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer continued:
…the European Movement are not justified in assuming that businesses will be able to set donations to them against tax. Contrary to some assertions",
including those of hon. Members,
the Board of Inland Revenue have given no ruling on the deductibility of contributions to any particular organisation concerned with the EEC or referendum issue. In practice I would not normally expect contributions paid to either pro or anti EEC organisations to qualify as deductions".
The hon. Gentleman has had his complete answer.

Mr. Hurd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Buchan: Just a oment. I shall deal with everybody in due time. The hon. Gentleman has had his answer. He is correct in asserting that since 1955 businesses have been contributing to the European Movement, although I hope that they will note that the Chancellor says: the European Movement are not justified in assuming that businesses will be able to set donations to them against tax. Contrary to some assertions, the Board of Inland Revenue have given no ruling on the deductibility of contributions to any particular organisation concerned with the EEC or referendum issue.
[Interruption.] When their pockets are hit, hon. Members opposite get so impatient. They should take their time. This is an extremely serious point for the country.

Mr. Hurd: The point which I was trying to make to the hon. Gentleman, and which he does not seem to have grasped was that in the past firms contributing to the European Movement have been able


to satisfy the Inland Revenue. What happens in the future is a matter of law. No one can say in advance what the position will be. It will be a question whether the firm concerned is able to satisfy the Inland Revenue that in accordance with the law this particular contribution falls into the tax deductible category.

Mr. Buchan: I absolutely accept that. That is the final darning comment on the statement which is made that money given in support of their business interests can be written off as a genuine expense. In other words, they are judging the issue. It is they who are saying that money given to the referendum campaign can be written off as a genuine expense. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is a legal question. If they are in the wrong, it may be that it is a very serious legal question. There are still courts waiting on the question of conspiracy. This comes close to conspiracy, if I read it in the context of the Chancellor's answer. That is why the amendment is so serious.
I shall give some proof. I have done my homework. I have in front of me Business Bulletin No. 6 of the National Federation of Building Trade Employers. This is what the trade journals are now saying to their members. The bulletin says:
Members who feel it important"—
this is not the European Movement's cultural office, but the campaign on the referendum—
to support the campaign are asked to consider making a contribution towards its funds. Payments should be made in favour of the European Movement, 1A Whitehall Place, London, S.W.I, and addressed personally to … the Finance Officer, with a note stating that the money is to be credited to the Britain in Europe Fund.
It is not the European Movement as such, not the cultural activities of the European Movement, but the Britain in Europe Fund, the precise political fund.
All payments so far made to the European Movement since its foundation in 1955 have been treated as an allowable business expense and have not had to be declared as a political contribution.
So it is now being recognised that the recipient's activities have changed from its past cultural activities to being a political campaign and it is telling its members that contributions have not had to be declared as political contributions.
The names of contributors and the scale of contribution will not be made public.

That is the situation that the country is facing. Against that background, the giving of £125,000 to each side is almost an insult. We are facing an organisation which tells its local members—this is the European Movement alone; this is only one of the bosses' movements in the pro-Market campaign—
Do not approach the companies listed in appendix 2.
Appendix 2 lists the 1,500 major companies of Britain which the organisation is approaching nationally. Those are the kind of funds available to these people.
We have all seen, in our areas, how the funds are used. It is not only the gigantic funds coming from business and not to be disclosed to the British people, unlike in election campaigns. They have another ally—the commission itself. My own area is beginning to look like Saigon, with, every weekend, a continual airlift to Brussels of people to be feted and dined. It is beginning to look like corruption. What is the name of the Act—the Corruption of the People Act?
9.15 p.m.
There are other examples of this sort of thing. There is a movement called. I believe, the Young Left, which is able to run a weekend conference of two days and one night with travelling expenses paid, and the cost is £1. I think this comes very close to corruption of young people. I give another example. I read in the Daily Telegraph today that the EEC information office—not a British institution—has invited the editors of immigrant newspapers to Brussels. This is becoming very serious, and the Government must face this situation.
In the light of these facts and of the Chancellor's statement, the Government should introduce an emergency motion on Report insisting that all donations should be made public, that the European Movement should withdraw this circular, warning it of the consequences if it does not, and insisting that 1,500 major companies should be told that these donations may not necessarily be free of tax.
We have reached a scandalous situation. I remember arguing on the Representation of the People Act 1969, with Lord Hailsham, about the restriction of money in constituency election campaigns. I argued that the restriction was established in order to have equality between.


parties, so that a poor party would not suffer from an exaggerated superior force, or a wealthy party. The noble Lord said that that was not the purpose—that the purpose was to avoid an ostentatious or scandalous display of extravagance. If that is the case, we are certainly seeing it now.

Mr. Neil Marten: I understand that some of my constituents have been invited to Brussels, to fly there and be entertained and then fly back for £5, which bears no relation whatsoever to the cost. Surely this is very near to buying votes in the referendum, and if this were in a General Election it would be construed as a corrupt practice.

Mr. Buchan: I have no doubt that the treating that is going on now is scandalous and that in a General Election it would undoubtedly come within the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act.
There is a third factor. The Government will be issuing their own propaganda. I have written to the European Movement. It received my letter yesterday. I have so far had no reply. I make no complaint about that, because the European Movement, no doubt has a lot to think about in the letter which I sent. I pointed out that it might be in danger of misleading many hundreds of business men and industrialists. The ball is now at the feet of the European Movement, and I hope it will come clean.
The purpose of the amendment is to show that we are not dealing with a fair and just situation. We are dealing with a situation in which one side has access to unlimited wealth and unlimited power to use that wealth for the organisations of the EEC, and that power and wealth is being used directly and ruthlessly, careless of the consequences for the political life of this country, in order to carry a "Yes" vote.
This amendment must be carried. I cannot remember the precise amount of money spent in my election campaign, but I think it was something like £1,400 or £1,500. A sum of £125,000 does not represent the expenses involved in the average constituency.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) to our ranks in trying to establish equality in

this matter. His amendment proposes to increase the sum to £500,000. Even this is insufficient. If my hon. Friend would like to increase the figure up, I would support him, if that were the only amount spent.
I shall be pushing the amendment to a vote. I hope that all Labour Members who are dedicated to the principles of justice and equality will support my hon. Friend and myself in the vote.

Mr. Michael English: (Nottingham, West): On a point of order, Sir Stephen. Is it possible to have separate Divisions on Amendments Nos. 56 and 57?

The Temporary Chairman: I propose to allow Divisions on the amendment which I have called and on Amendment No. 57.

Mr. Emery: I have listened with some interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I rise to urge the Committee strongly to reject the amendment, and I shall later be urging it to reject the whole clause.
We are embarking—and the amendment carries the process further—on directly applying taxpayers' money to political objectives of organisations and parties. I believe that this is wholly wrong. It is the thin end of the wedge. The amendment is proof-positive of that. Many people have suggested that it was over-generous that £250,000 should be provided out of taxpayers' money. Many old-age pensioners would much prefer that that money should be spent on them rather than on political propaganda.
When the figure of £250,000 was included in the Bill, it was said that as sure as eggs were eggs somebody would suggest that it should be much more. Inflation has gone mad. Since the publication of the Bill the figure has risen by four times. It is now suggested that £1 million of taxpayers' money should be made available, half and half, to the two organisations.
The whole essence of the amendment is wrong. It says that organisations concerned with political objectives have the right to enough money to do what they want, irrespective of the funds that may be made available to a much larger number of organisations that oppose them.
The hon. Gentleman's arguments were false, because he tried to suggest that what had been legally acceptable in the past was wrong.

Mr. Buchan: No. I was referring to the present situation.

Mr. Emery: I am delighted to hear that that is not what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, but certainly that was the impression that I gained from his speech. That is supported by some of my hon. Friends who have indicated so since I made the statement.

Mr. Buchan: I read out the quotation from 1955. This is no longer going just to the European Movement. It was going to the "Britain in Europe" Campaign. It was in the guidelines sent out for a political campaign. That was the difference.

Mr. Emery: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has defined his view, but it goes a stage further than he implies. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that if it were legally possible for contributions to be made by a firm or organisation, contributions allowed by the tax authorities, those contributions should now be stopped. I believe his suggestion was that if they were high amounts it was grossly unfair to those who opposed the view supported by those organisations.
I have always believed that companies and individuals should be able to apply their money in whatever way they wanted as long as it came within the law. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the money would be tax-free. It is not tax-free if it comes within the law, because it is not taxable. Let us get the definitions right. The hon. Gentleman is trying to presume things, and is falling below his usual high standard. A number of Labour Members have a way of presuming much more from a factual statement than the statement warrants.
I believe that if there were a referendum on whether tax money should be used for the conduct of the referendum the British people would say strongly "Not a penny of taxpayers' money should be given to either of the organisations for their campaign."
I have information that the trade unions will make donations, as they may decide, in support of the campaign to

take Britain out of the Common Market. I do not condemn the trade unions for using their money in that way if that is what their regulations allow. However, I do not believe that it was what most workers paid their contributions for.
We now come to the interesting counter-arguments, with one side saying that the intention was that business money should not be used in a certain direction, and the other arguing that workers would not have expected contributions to be made from trade union funds in the other direction. I do not mind the trade unions making contributions that they are legally allowed to make, nor that business should do so. But we need to achieve a proper balance, and I believe that the two sides of the argument cancel each other out.

Mr. Marten: As Chairman of the National Referendum Campaign, I have no information that the trades unions will give us any money. If my hon. Friend has, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Emery: I have no intention of trying to improve communications between my hon. Friend and his friends. That is up to him.

Mr. Max Madden: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us of any private companies contributing to the pro-Market campaign which have sought the agreement of their shareholders to their making those donations?

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman must be unaware of the way in which a British company operates. The shareholders elect their directors annually, just as every five years or so the hon. Gentleman's constituents elect him or one of his opponents. If the shareholders do not like the policy pursued by their directors, they have the right to get rid of them at any general meeting, special or annual. The directors decide what they think is the best policy for the company. The decisions are made for the benefit of the company and of those who work in it. The hon. Member should take into account that decisions of management are for the benefit of the company and its workers. Management wishes to see the greatest expansion and profitability of its concern, and it can do so to the direct benefit of its employees only by spending money.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: Does the hon. Member agree that perhaps one of the few arguments for remaining in Europe would be that the whole system of electing directors in the manner he described would have to cease under the Community's so-called Ninth Directive? We can adopt that policy unilaterally and therefore, when we leave the Common Market I hope that the hon. Member will support some of my hon. Friends and me in our Industrial Democracy Bill and in its and the Brussels Commission's aim of having half of a company's directors as workers' instead of shareholders' representatives.

Mr. Emery: I think that if I went even one centimeter down that road, Sir Stephen—

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not follow that line of argument because if he did he would be out of order.

Mr. Emery: Perhaps I can pursue that point privately with the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in the Smoking Room over a drink.
Therefore, it seems to me that the situation goes very much deeper than just the figures that have been suggested. There is this major principle behind the amendment and the clause. I and, I believe, a large number of other people are strongly against the principle and, therefore, would be even more opposed to increasing the amounts to those which have been suggested in the amendment.

Mr. William Hamilton: I apologise for being absent from the Committee when the amendments were called, Sir Stephen. I had not had a bite to eat since lunch-time and I thought that I had time to nip out for a quick snack.
I am very glad that I caught my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) on his feet. I was just in time to hear him use the kind of arguments we shall hear increasingly over the course of the next four or five weeks. I think that the gist of his argument was that one side had access to unlimited wealth—presumably he meant the pro-Market side. He said he would, therefore, support the amendment, but I notice that he did not bother to put his name

down to it, and the amendment has been tabled for some weeks. That shows how much support he gives the amendment. He is an opportunist, if nothing else. However, he intends to support it, and I am glad for that.
Perhaps I may explain to my hon. Friend why I put the amendment down. I thought of a number—just as the Government thought of a number—and I put it down to emphasise the absurdity of the whole exercise. I could well have made the sum £1 million. I might have got support from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry if I had made it £5 million and asked whether, if we can give Triumph motor bikes £5 million, there is any reason why we should not have that sum for this unique constitutional precedent of the twentieth century. I did not choose to do that. I thought instead of the public purse and I decided to be reasonable and stick at £500,000. I thought that the £125,000 worked out at about £200 per constituency and that was not very much. Perhaps the penurious anti-Common Market people are in desperate need. Let us be generous to them. Let us make sure that we are being absolutely fair. Perhaps we should introduce a form of national supplementary benefit for them. Perhaps we might increase the sum four times.
I also tabled the amendment as a peg on which to hang a few questions. How did the Government arrive at the figure of £125,000? Why was it not £100,000 or £150,000? Whom did they consult? Did they consult the National Front?

Mr. Buchan: Oh!

Mr. Hamilton: I shall make my speech in my own way. I shall not be intimidated.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sure that it will be a great help if the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) addresses his remarks to the Chair. If he does so he will not become involved in any arguments.

Mr. Hamilton: It will be much pleasanter to address my remarks to the Chair, Sir Stephen. I shall not be intimidated by any hostile noises that come from my right.
I want to know how the Government arrived at this figure and what organisations they consulted. Did they consult Clive Jenkins' union or the National Front? They are both on the same side.

Mr. Buchan: That is not right.

Mr. Hamilton: I hope that my hon. Friends will make their specehes in their own way. My hon. Friends are further emphasising the dangers of this whole exercise. The longer it continues the more bitter these exchanges will become. I can give as good as is given. As the "anti" campaign loses the argument so will the hysteria and the irresponsibility of these charges increase.

Mr. Marten: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the charges he has made always seem to come from the pro-Marketeers, They always seem to drag up the National Front and the Communists. The anti-Marketeers do not refer to the Maoists and Sir Oswald Mosley in support of their argument. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rise above that sort of charge in this debate.

Mr. Hamilton: I shall rise when my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, West rises. In his original speech he sought to associate those of us who happen to support our continued membership of the European Community with big business and the rest.

Mr. Buchan: I did not.

Mr. Hamilton: I hope that my hon. Friend will not continue to intervene from a sedentary Position. I hope that he will get up from his seat.

Mr. James Thin: On a point of order, Sir Stephen. I do not question your ruling, but it was the first occasion in my time in the House when I recall the Chair protecting the hon. Member on his feet by suggesting that he should not attract interruptions. My hon. Friend is maintaining his speech against a constant barrage of sedentary interruptions.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman is casting some reflection upon my intervention, let me say that I was merely reminding the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) of the duty of all hon. Members to address their remarks to the Chair. I personally deplore the

continued interruptions which are taking place during the hon. Gentleman's speech. I deplore sedentary interruptions and I deplore phoney points of order.

Mr. Hamilton: I was trying to emphasise that charges of guilt by association can be played both ways. I was about to point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West made a speech on precisely those lines. He referred to big business, but that was not the only line that he adopted.

Mr. Buchan: Now that my hon. Friend has given way and I am no longer speaking sedentarily, may I say that no one who was present at the beginning of my speech would believe that that was the case. [Interruption.] I spoke about the European Movement, its methods of fund-raising and its patrons. I quoted the Chancellor as disproving certain assertions. I did not associate any of my hon. Friends with what I was saying. I have nothing but contempt for some of the people involved, and I am sure that my hon. Friends feel the same way, too.

Mr. Hamilton: That is the second speech my hon. Friend has made. I heard him with my own ears say that there was one side that had unlimited access to funds—

Mr. Buchan: That is right.

Mr. Hamilton: The implication was clear. He also said that it came very near to corruption.

Mr. Buchan: Right.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend used both expressions, and the inference, the only inference, was that those of us who take a contrary view were associated with corruption and big business. I have no association with either and will not be so associated.
I want to keep this argument on the merits of the case. The purpose of my amendment was to show the pure arbitrariness of the figure of £125,000 and the complete lack of any control over its use.
That brings me to Amendment No. 58 about the organisations affiliated to these umbrella organisations. What exactly does that mean? I have suggested substituting for that phrase the words "associated with". I do not know what that


means either. Both with the figure of £500,000 and with the phrase "associated with", my suggestions are as meaningful, or as meaningless, as the Government's proposals.
There is a piece in this evening's Evening Standard about the organisations which I presume are affiliated to or associated with these umbrella organisations. It says:
A gallimaufry of different fringe organisations are now actively affiliated"—
I do not know whether the Government decide that these organisations should be affiliated to the pro-European movement or the anti-European movement. The article goes on:
to the pro- and anti-Common Market forces for the June 5 referendum. A quick survey this morning shows that Britain In Europe shelters such assorted bed-fellows as: The European Association of Teachers, the European Luncheon Club, the European Union of Women, the Scottish Lawyers' European Group, the Solicitors European Group, and the Young European Left. There is even a Christians for Europe organisation.
Another 200 or so nationwide "spread-the-gospel" groups are co-ordinated from the campaign's Hyde Park Corner HQ.
The Get Britain Out people have mustered:"—

Mr. Marten: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: No! The hon. Gentleman must not spoil the fun.

Mr. English: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member is a damned sight worse!
The article continues:
the Conservatives Against the Treaty of Rome, the Labour Committee for Safeguards on the Common Market, the Liberal No to the Common Market, Welsh, Scottish, Ulster and Cornish Nationalists and the Boot and Shoe Manufacturers against Europe.
They also boast grass-roots organisations in all constituencies except Ulster, but they declined the Housewives Against the Common Market and the National Front.
9.45 p.m.
We saw the exhibition on television last weekend at which all must have been appalled, whatever party they may belong to. However, that is the kind of thing we shall get during the next five or six weeks.
The article continues:
For the country's fence-sitters"—

and there are plenty of those here—
a new organisation has just been formed: the Don't Know Campaign (slogan: Pass the buck back where it belongs).
Will that organisation get any public money? Presumably not, because it would be neither affiliated to nor associated with either of the two umbrella organisations. Therefore, it will have to spend its own money. That is grossly unfair, because a large proportion of our population genuinely do not know and want to pass the buck here, where it belongs. Why should they not have access to public money to put that point of view?
I mean no criticism of this section of amendments, but it is rather sad that there has not been a selection to enable us to pose the question whether it would or would not be desirable to table an amendment proposing to give the people a choice to say whether they want this decision to be made by the House of Commons rather than by this ridiculous exercise we are now undertaking.

Mr. Marten: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a great tradition for accuracy in the House of Commons. He has based his case and his subsequent argument on the facts of that article.

Mr. Hamilton: No.

Mr. Marten: Yes, he did, because he said so. That article is grossly inaccurate. It does not even have the name of the umbrella organisation right. It has merely picked on one of the 10 affiliated organisations. If it gets the name of the organisation wrong, we can say that quite a lot of the other so-called affiliated organisations in the list are also wrong, which they are.

Mr. Hamilton: I am simply quoting the article in the Evening Standard. I was not saying whether it was true or not. The argument was adduced that there was some guilt by association. I want to dissociate myself from that kind of campaign and will try to do so during the next five or six weeks. I shall not hurl at the anti-Europeans the suggestion that the Communist Party is on their side. It is as divided as other organisations on this matter. We want it to be treated on the merits of the case.
The purpose of these two amendments is to show the foolishness of the exercise,


and these are just two examples of it. The £125,000 is arbitrary. The words "affiliated to" mean nothing at all. The umbrella organisations are accountable to no one. They have been elected by no one. I do not know any members of them, and I certainly have never attended any of their meetings. I do not belong to them, nor do I intend to belong to them. I shall conduct my campaign in the way I think proper. I hope that it will be reasonably dignified and that it will be reasonably brutal, because I want to ensure that we do not have a repetition of this nonsense.

[Mr. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]

Mr. Hurd: In approaching this amendment we must have regard to the situation described in the rather intemperate speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). Although he believes that he made a soft and cooing speech, those of us who listened to it drew, at the time, a rather contrary conclusion. I do not complain about that, as long as the hon. Gentleman bears in mind a clear recollection of the words he used.
It is necessary to make a clear distinction between the raising of funds and the spending of them. I should declare an interest, because I am the research director of one of the constituent organisations which joined to form "Britain in Europe", although I have had no concern with the activities of which the hon. Gentleman complains. However, as regards the raising of funds, both sides in this argument are busily concerned with doing that. I have here a letter from the "Get Britain Out" campaign addressed to a considerable number of companies, which says,
Finally, there is the question of finance, without which any campaign, however justified or deserving, stands little chance of success. I would therefore ask you to consider whether you would make a donation.
I make no complaint about that. It is a perfectly respectable and honourable way of appealing for funds to businesses in order to get funds for the "Get Britain Out" campaign.

Mr. Buchan: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks. He was right. I made a tough speech. No one has ever said that I have made a

cooing speech. That I was not making a guilt-by-association speech was the point on which I insisted. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the letter from which he has quoted says, "You will get tax relief if you contribute"?

Mr. Hurd: I thought that that might be the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I was coming to that point.
In response to my intervention the hon. Gentleman agreed that, as a matter of history, in the past contributions to the European Movement have been allowed by the Inland Revenue in general terms —I do not know whether they have been universally allowed—as deductible. The hon. Gentleman sought to distinguish between previous contributions and those now made—

Mr. Buchan: The Chancellor.

Mr. Hurd: —which would go to the specific campaign. It may be that the Inland Revenue will draw the same conclusion. It may be that it will not. The Chancellor's letter from which the hon. Gentleman quoted was properly cautious on this point. But the essence of the matter is that it is between the firm concerned and the Inland Revenue, and it may be that the decision arrived at will be different in different cases
Some firms may be able to show that their contributions for this purpose are so directly relevant to their existence and prosperity as businesses that they are properly deductible. Other firms may not be able to show that. This is a matter between the firm and the Inland Revenue—the Inland Revenue operating under normal rules. There is nothing particularly significant or disreputable that warrants the hon. Gentleman using the kind of terms that he did use.
We do not know yet how the appeals for funds from the two organisations will work out. It may be that businesses in this country will feel that they are more likely to prosper if the answer is "Yes" and will contribute accordingly. It may be—my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has no knowledge of this—that trade unions will feel the opposite, and would rather contribute money out of their political funds to the "No" cause than the "Yes" cause. We do not know yet.
It is not yet a crime in Britain to be more successful in raising support for one's views than the other chap. It would be a pity if, as regards the raising of funds, that became a crime.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is there not something basically abhorrent in the idea that the Inland Revenue should be considering tax allowances for people who are making a subjective decision? Whether or not their argument is that their businesses will be helped or otherwise, it is subjective. This is at a time when whole sectors of our society, such as teachers, do not get adequate tax allowances for various necessary purposes and when all manner of other sectors of society do not get allowances for the things which are necessary to carry on their businesses? Is there not something basically abhorrent about the Revenue's position in this matter?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady is drawing me a little wide, Mr. Thomas, and I do not think that you would approve if I made another speech on that subject. We are dealing here with the decisions of business men as to the future prosperity of their companies. It is for the Inland Revenue, under rules eventually subject to the authority of Parliament, to decide whether particular contributions fall within the rules concerned. That is a normal procedure.

Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman said that he was not against the law permitting firms and individuals to make contributions. Does he agree that during election campaigns there is a limit on expenditure?

Mr. Hurd: I said that we should try to draw a firm distinction between the raising and spending of funds.
I now turn to the matter of spending funds. The Lord President proposes under the Bill to take sweeping powers concerning the spending of money. That is right. He should take those powers, and enforce them with all the power at his command when applying the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts. The Lord President's power to control spending will be sweeping. Anybody contravening those controls will face the full rigour of the law.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me where the sweeping powers of the Lord President are to be found in the Referendum Bill?

Mr. Hurd: I shall come to that later.
The Lord President will have power to examine accounts and to look into the spending of money. He will also make an order applying to the referendum a provision contained in the Representation of the People Acts.
It is not a crime to raise money. It is not sensible for people to complain that one section, whether that of business or trade unions, is more successful than its rivals in attracting support. However, the spending of money is a different matter. The Bill gives the Government power to control the spending of money.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Bill gives power to control the spending of any money other than public money received in grants?

Mr. Hurd: The Bill gives that power. It covers the grant of £125,000 and
the sums received or spent for the purpose of the referendum since 26th March 1975.
That applies to us all.

Mr. Jay: Surely Clause 3(2)(a) refers to "the sums received", meaning public grants.

Mr. Hurd: On this occasion my quotation was accurate. The proposal refers to moneys received and to the publication of accounts, not simply the expenditure of £125,000. Against that background we must consider the amendment and the proposal that Government money should be given to umbrella organisations.
I have some sympathy with the philosophical point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), since I voted against the proposal that political Opposition parties should receive extra funds and attach themselves to the Welfare State. That is not good for the health of parliamentary democracy. I should have liked it to apply to this position as well. I think the reason lies in the speech made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West.


No one on this side of the Committee likes—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Referendum Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Miss Boothroyd.]

REFERENDUM BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That amendment be made.

Mr. Hurd: We do not like the Referendum Bill, but if there is to be a referendum it is important that it should be conducted in circumstances of fairness.
I think that the Government foresaw the situation which is now arising. Those who are opposed to the Government's recommendation see the force of it, not to speak of the fact that most hon. Members on the Opposition side of the Committee also support it, and, running a little short of substantive argument on the substance of the question, they are concentrating overwhelmingly on the circumstances of the campaign and the belief that one side is attracting more money than the other and disposes of more muscle.
The Government foreseeing that, although I regret the necessity, were therefore right to say that each side should have equivalent broadcasting time—I understand that that has been negotiated without complaint—and a substantial, but not enormous, sum of money to ensure that a proper campaign could be waged on either side. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that a proper campaign is not being waged on either side, I must dissent from them. I think that in many ways it is a highly active and energetic campaign. However, the Government were right to take this view.
I do not agree that the larger sum proposed by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is right. It is an arbitrary sum, as he agreed, and so is the

original one. But I should have thought, for the reasons that I have given, that it is sensible on this occasion to make sums available to both sides to forestall to some extent—as we have seen tonight, they can never be forestalled entirely—the accusations which are now being made. I should have thought—although this is bound to be a subjective judgment, and will displease the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing)—that the sum of £125,000 to each side was approximately just and correct.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: You will have noticed, Mr. Thomas, that the debate has become slightly acrimonious. A number of us expected that on this item that would be the situation. That is why a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself tabled Amendment No. 57, which deals with the problem.
I think that I can speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends. We want this debate to be conducted in good temper and to see that both sides have adequate funds. That is why I shall address myself to that proposition. I do not wish to be drawn into the debate concerning where the European Movement gets its funds.
Amendment No. 57 calls for an increase in the amount in the Bill to £250,000 and for that to be spent by the two umbrella organisations.
I should like to point out to my hon. Friends who have already spoken that, contrary to Press accounts, the Labour Committee for Europe is not flush with money. I speak as treasurer of that body, this being my third year in that position. I have sent out an appeal for funds to all members of the Labour Committee for Europe. It will be no secret that we hope to get some money from the Government—the amount of money that we hope will be given to the two respective umbrella organisations—but what we do not want to see, and we feel strongly about this, is a debate just about the money. We want a debate about the issues, and that is why I hope the Government will accept Amendment No. 57 in the spirit in which it has been tabled.

Mr. Nick Budgen: I start from the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), in that I am wholly opposed to the idea of any form of taxpayers' grant to any political organisation.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) has now parted company from my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and myself. He based his case on the concept of fairness, but I think he was agreed when we were discussing the whole philosophy of grants to political parties that the essence of subscribing to or supporting a political party is that by one's efforts one makes its position unfair. Hopefully, one makes its position stronger than that of any other party. If we equalise the money that ordinary citizens are allowed to give to a political party, we ought in logic to equalise the amount of effort, passion and conviction that each side gives to any political debate.
The essence of fighting in a political situation is that one wishes to make one's side unfairly advantaged, and it is rubbish to say that because on this issue we who are pro-Marketeers believe that we have more money than the anti-Marketeers we should in some way give away our advantage so that this mythical concept of fairness can be adhered to.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) when he attacked these two Market organisations for being undemocratic. They are quite unlike political parties, and therefore the case for not giving a grant to political parties is even stronger in respect of these two organisations. For political parties are, after all, democratic in the sense that they are organised in a democratic way in the constituencies. They are also democratic in the sense that they are based upon either representation, or the hope of representation, in the House of Commons, and neither of these two organisations is in any way democratic in those two senses.
But I am also opposed to this proposed grant because I believe that the essence of a political party or any political organisation is that in a sense it is a club.

It is an exclusive organisation. It has the right as any club does, to exclude an individual or body, and here I make no criticism of the anti-Market organisation for excluding the National Front. If it is a club, it is entitled to exclude organisations if it does not like them. I dare say that those who campaign on this side of the Committee would wish, for instance, to exclude Sir Oswald Mosley or the Maoists. That is the privilege which attaches to our status as something like a club.
But surely that is a totally inappropriate organisation to be in receipt of taxpayers' money. For the essence of being in receipt of taxpayers' money is that every citizen is entitled to receive that money if he happens to conform to the particular conditions for the receipt of those funds. That surely is one of the basic concepts of equality under the law. We could not possibly have a situation where, for the sake of argument, only those who vote Communist should be in receipt of social security. Yet we are saying that those who share the views of the National Front may not benefit from the grant to be given to the anti-Market organisation.
On the other side—and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon may be able to help here—we may be saying that we do not like the Maoists or Sir Oswald Mosley. Thus, though the Maoists or Sir Oswald Mosley may be taxpayers in this country, they are not, for some exclusive reason attaching to these clubs, entitled to benefit from the taxpayers' largesse. This illustrates better than anything the ridiculous concept of giving handouts to any political party or organisation. I shall vote with enormous pleasure against the amendment and against the clause.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have not taken part in the referendum debate or, on a more general note, in the Common Market debate for some time. The arguments have been made over and over again. They have changed a little.
I wish to say a few words as a result of having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) speak about the way in which the European Movement is organising its funds. It is able to do what it is doing in sending letters to various bodies, particularly big business, because, as the


Prime Minister has said, this is a unique situation. But we are attempting to conduct it along the lines of the normal general or local election techniques, and, haphazard though it may be, the people will expect, and they have every right to expect, that all the devices and methods used in a General Election will be used in this campaign. Already we are witnessing, as evidenced by the letter to which my hon. Friend referred, the way in which corruption and bribery can take place on a pretty grand scale.
One could argue that for some time people have been flown to Brussels and Strasbourg to try to win favours and influence people. One could equally argue that that is not in an election situation and to that extent it matters little. However, my impression is that, because the procedures laid down are not clear or as fundamentally as clear as in a General Election, this kind of practice will take place even after the Bill becomes law.
Therefore, the kind of capers in which the last Prime Minister indulged when, in halcyon days, he trotted round the marginal seats will pale by comparison with the way in which the media—and I refer to television, apart from the large national daily and weekly newspapers, which are at one on this issue—will combine to ensure that, if there is any chance of the people looking as if they will take Britain out of the Common Market, every means is used to convince them that what they are doing is wrong.
That is why I support the amendment, though not in the most forthright fashion, as I usually do—not that I am enamoured by the prospect of using taxpayers' money for this purpose but because the campaign is so obviously unequal.
10.15 p.m.
Some of the damage might be repaired if the amount granted to both sides were to be raised. However, no matter how much the taxpayer granted to the anti-Common Market side we could never match either in financial terms or in any other terms the amount of brainwashing and propaganda which are now taking place and which will continue to take place throughout the referendum campaign.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with a suspicion that I have about the real reason why he is using such strong language? It seems that the anti-Europeans, who forced the device of the referendum on the country, now fear that they will be defeated by it and thereby hoist by their own petard. The more hard core of them are now preparing excuses for failure and are using words such as "corruption" and "bribery" and accusing the media of brainwashing the public and are laying the foundations or preparing the way for another unconstitutional device.

Mr. Skinner: I shall for my own perhaps eccentric and personal reasons continue to hold my views, whatever the  result. They are not necessarily the reasons held by others on these benches. What concerns me is the point I am leading up to. In the course of the past couple of days I have had brought to my attention a letter which is somewhat dissimilar to that which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West but which provides clear evidence of the way in which the Commission will try to influence, bribe and corrupt not only the British people who will cast their votes but those within the media who have the opportunity, power and influence to get their message across to an even greater degree.
The letter is headed
Diplomatic and Commonwealth Writers Association of Britain".
It has been sent to members only, but some kind person from the Gallery sent it to me. The letter says:
The Commission of the European Communities. A very attractive offer of a visit—all expenses paid—to the EEC in Brussels has been made by our friend and colleague, Michael Lake.
It is open to all full members of the Diplomatic and Commonwealth Writers Association. The facility begins with Lunch on Wednesday, May 21, 1975.
I would guess that by that time the Bill will have become law.
I know a little about illegal practice, not necessarily corruption. I have looked at the Representation of the People Act on many occasions, long before I came to Parliament. I know what it is like to he riding in a vehicle that has a PSV licence and to be hounded by the police and by the Opposition over a period of


many months because of a very slight misdemeanour of which I was eventually proved to be innocent. I know what it is like.
In this referendum it is not a question of riding in a vehicle that has a PSV licence and taking part in a local election campaign. This is a matter which, according to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and certainly according to hon. Members opposite, will settle the destiny of Britain, today's children and future generations for ever and a day. There is some difference of view about that matter, but I will not go into that now.
The lunch which is to take place at 20 Kensington Palace Gardens—the Communities' headquarters—will result in the party that takes part in this event being flown to Brussels followed by a discussion and a return on Friday, 23rd May. That is the kind of forum that is set for the people who will be writing all these glorious articles about why the British people should stay inside the Common Market. It is no different from the one that was organised by that company of which we used to hear so much, Clark-son's, before it went bankrupt. It had all the writers that it could get hold of flown out to its holiday resorts in order that they could come back and write their articles in the nation's Press and try to brainwash—

The Chairman: Order—

Mr. Tim Renton: rose—

The Chairman: Does the hon. Member mind if I deal with my point of order first? I hope the hon. Member from Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will now relate his argument more to the question of the amount of money to be given in aid.

Mr. Skinner: You are a very kind man, Mr. Thomas—

The Chairman: Mr. Renton, on a point of order.

Mr. Renton: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. My point of order was the same as yours.

Mr. Skinner: I have been listening to what has taken place in this debate, Mr. Thomas, before you came into the Chair, and I am answering many of the points which have been made in the debate. What I was saying in the analogy that

I was drawing recently was that this is a device by which the British Press managed to get their point of view across. I have no doubt that unless what is happening is brought to the attention not only of the House of Commons—that matters little—but of the British people generally, it will continue unabated and at a pace which we have never experienced before. This referendum campaign is so unique, and people will think that they have got the licence and the opportunity to do what they like. Coupled with the kind of references made by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West to the granting of tax relief—[Interruption.] Well, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has answered my hon. Friend, but I have the impression that the answer my hon. Friend read tonight, and which he showed to me earlier, is not as conclusive as some of us would like. Indeed, many of the Chancellor's answers on these tax matters cannot be accepted because he is not the man who in the end will deal with the points that have been raised.

Mr. Ridley: Why is the hon. Member complaining about one-sidedness in this matter? After all, the Trades Union C. Congress went to very great expense in inviting Mr. Shelepin here—

The Chairman: Order. References to Mr. Shelepin are a long way from the point.

Mr. Skinner: I do not wish to comment on the hon. Gentleman's intervention except to say that there has been some talk of us doing our best not to get involved in personalities in this campaign but to concentrate on the policies which divide us. I believe that that is what we must attempt to do. These irrelevancies and red herrings which have been thrown about are not matters with which we should concern ourselves.
I wish to stress that in view of the sum of the disclosures we have heard, we are bordering very close to what could be described as standing four square against Sections 99 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act. Section 100 states, in respect of treating—and this refers to the letter which I read earlier—
A person shall be guilty of treating if he corruptly, by himself or by any other person, either before, during or after an election"—


and we must assume that this relates to the campaign—
directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing, any meat, drink, entertainment or provision to or for any person—

(a) for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person or any other person to vote or refrain from voting; or
(b)on account of that person …"—

The Chairman: Order. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman had finished reading that. He must relate the argument more directly to the amount of aid to be given.

Mr. Skinner: On one side of the argument there is evidence to suggest that money is being used to try to influence people's votes in the referendum. I am describing the way in which, as set out in the Representation of the People Act, such infringements can result in corrupt practices being proved. In respect of treating, this is conclusive. Therefore, it directly relates to the question of how much money should be allocated by the taxpayer to see that it is a fair fight.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Perhaps I may assist my hon. Friend on the matter of the letter inviting journalists and writers to Brussels. The European Commission may be wasting its money and ours. My hon. Friend will recall the well-known doggerel: You cannot hope to bribe or twist, Thank God, the British journalist.
But seeing what he will do unbribed, There's no occasion to.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend makes a better job of the argument than I do.
I was just concluding paragraph (b), which says—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman need not continue to read it, because we are dealing not with how money is spent but with how much is to be contributed. The amendments are in clear language. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his argument to the contribution that shall be made.

Mr. Skinner: The people who sent out the letter to which I have referred may well consider that the £125,000 apiece is enough, on the basis that they have plenty more. With respect, that is relevant to this argument. Therefore, we

must ensure, whatever happens throughout the rest of this week and when the Bill becomes law, that the referendum is fought along the lines of General Elections or local government elections. Otherwise, many people will feel considerable doubt about whether it was a fair and balanced fight, in which each side had an opportunity to express its views through the media and elsewhere.
We believe that already one side has tremendous amounts of money at its disposal, even to the extent of having money from the taxpayer through the various grants made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, and possibly in tax relief. We believe that the balance is tilted to one side and that the only reparation we can make is to ensure that we obtain more money for our side, to reduce the present vast gap.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. English: This started out as a nasty little bad-tempered debate and in many respects it has so remained. I except entirely the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) who has his name attached to the second of the amendments. He hit the nail on the head precisely and I should like to take up the points he made.
The simple point is not something that can be discussed upon a subsequent amendment, namely whether there is an improper use of funds. My right hon. Friend the Lord President, and I give him full credit for it, originally suggested at the time of the publication of the White Paper that the grant of money to the two sides should be larger than it now is. His suggestion was reported in the Press and it was not denied. Some figures were denied but it is clear, particularly from advice given to Britain in Europe and the National Referendum Campaign that the money was originally intended to be larger. At some stage it was reduced to the ridiculous figure of £125,000.
I sympathise with Opposition Members. They have said that they do not like the principle of contributing taxpayers' money, but they did not put an amendment down, why I do not know. If money is to be contributed to both sides it would be much more sensible to make them sums of practical use. A poster campaign for a month, for example, would cost at least half the present sum specified in the


Bill. A newspaper advertising campaign for three weeks would cost at least 10 times as much as a poster campaign.
If Opposition Members think that both sides are equally flush with funds they need their heads looked at. If the referendum is to be fair there must be contributions to enable reasonably adequate communication and advertising of the case to the public. That being the case my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his original statement. He later said that it was difficult to limit expenditure on advertising and that idea was dropped. Instead the sums to be contributed were put into the White Paper. The sums then suggested were considerably greater than the amounts now before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is seeking to reinstate the present sum to its original level.

Mr. William Price: Before I deal with the amendments I shall briefly explain the thinking behind the proposals in Clause 3. We recognise, as we said in paragraph 40 of the Referendum White Paper, that some assistance from public funds to the two sides is desirable if the campaign is to be fair and effective. There is little doubt that those arguing for a "Yes" vote start with an advantage in that all the Press, with one exception, is on their side. It is claimed that it will be quite impossible for those who oppose the Market to get a fair hearing.
That was the gist of the argument of my lion. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and it is a practical point. It is causing a great deal of concern and in many respects it is far more important than the amount of money being contributed by anonymous businessmen in Europe, Britain and elsewhere.
I suspect that what I have to say might not meet with unanimous approval below the Gangway. There is some truth in my hon. Friend's argument, but it can be over-estimated. I can say as an old newspaperman that it is very easy to grossly exaggerate the power of the Press in these matters. I happen to believe that having Fleet Street on one's side does not automatically ensure a place in Heaven.
It is true that the editorial writers will almost unanimously urge their readers to vote for continuing membership. However, the evidence available in the news-

paper industry suggests that editorials are the least read sections of any publication. What is far more important is whether the newspapers which are pro-Europe are prepared to give reasonable coverage to those who take a different view. My case is that on past form it is likely that they will do so.

Mr. Flannery: Nonsense. Come off it.

Mr. Price: I invite those who shout "nonsense" to join with me in the exercise of monitoring closely the case for and against in all the national Press over the next two or three weeks. I may be proven to be wrong but I am prepared to undertake that exercise with any of my hon. Friends who are shouting "none-sense".

Mr. Corbett: Has my hon. Friend seen the Evening Standard tonight? It reports the decision of the Trades Union Congress today to recommend that Britain withdraws from the Common Market. It reports that decision in three lines and one sentence in the "News in Brief" column in an inside page.

Mr. Ridley: Too much.

Mr. Price: I have not seen that, for the good reason that there is a rule that Members shall not read newspapers in the Chamber. I have been in the Chamber since 3.30 this afternoon. In any case, journalists should not fall out about these matters. None the less, I shall take up that matter and talk about it afterwards with my hon. Friend. More important than editorials and newspaper columnists are radio and television. They have an obligation to be objective. Many discussions have taken place, and we are certain that both sides will receive equal treatment.
It is easy to exaggerate the power of the Press to influence voting habits. Newspaper men do that themselves. I do not think that we should fall into that trap. If it were true that newspapers had such enormous power over their readers we would be entitled to wonder how the Labour Party managed to win four out of the last five General Elections. If it were left to the Press we would be lucky to win a parish council seat in Clay Cross. Once there is an imbalance which the Government recognise—and it is to be


hoped that imbalances will not be as crippling to the anti-Marketeers as is sometimes imagined—we shall do whatever we can to ensure that people get both sides of the argument.
There is another reason for making money available and it is one that has been mentioned in some detail. It is believed that one side has potentially greater financial resources than the other. I must say that we are in muddy water. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have the slightest idea of the money that is available to either side. We have heard some astonishing claims and counterclaims and some real hard-luck stories. If there is the disparity that we are led to believe, the sum of £125,000 for the two umbrella organisations will go at least some way to putting the matter right. We have been able to identify those organisations as the ones which, in the words of the White Paper,
adequately represent those campaigning for and against continued membership of the Community".
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) wants the figure increased to half a million pounds. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and some of his colleagues propose, with characteristic moderation, a figure of a quarter of a million pounds. I cannot argue that our figure is uniquely right and that the other figures are wrong. However, there are arguments in favour of the smaller sum that I should put to the Committee. Even in these days £125,000 is not an unimportant sum. We have heard in the Chamber tonight that there are still people who argue that it is wrong to allocate any money at all.
We believe that with £125,000 it will be possible to have a reasonable display of leaflets, to hire halls, employ secretaries and pay for limited Press advertising. It must be remembered, and it is astonishing that this has not been mentioned, that it is intended only to supplement the resources which the organisations will rightly seek to raise from other sources. The grant will be more than quadrupled by our decision to print and circulate to every household, at public expense, a booklet setting out both sides of the case.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Two to one.

Mr. Price: For the moment I am talking about the "two". We can talk about the "one" if necessary. That will cost the Government more than £1 million, making a total of £1¼million which is equivalent to about £2,000 in each constituency, or approximately what the 2,000 candidates spent in the February General Election last year. Under the circumstances, we believe this to be the maximum amount of public money we can justify spending in this way, bearing in mind the need for curbs on public expenditure. I believe that we have found a balance between those who wanted no Government involvement and those who wanted to spend large sums of public money.

Mr. Bob Cryer: If my hon. Friend is establishing a case for fairness, does he not think it would be seen to be much fairer if he cut out the Government "mini" White Paper and concentrated solely on the distribution of the case from each side, giving the resultant saving out by way of grant as is suggested?

Mr. Price: The Government's case is that they have a perfect right to put their view to the people and that is what they intend to do. The purpose of Amendment No. 58 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central is to make it possible for the campaigning organisations to pass on the money not only to associations affiliated to the umbrella organisations but to those "associated with" them. He said that it was not entirely clear what the difference was. I must say that it is not entirely clear to me either, but affiliation would seem to require a positive link of some kind, whereas association might cover any loose working arrangement.
What would happen is that it would widen the field to include almost any organisation which claimed to be in any way associated with the campaign. Apart from spreading the available money too thinly it would undoubtedly let in one or two political organisations which I suspect my hon. Friend would regard as being somewhat dubious. We have, rightly in my view, left it to the two organisations to decide with whom they will affiliate or associate. That has led


to some minor dispute but we feel it is best done that way.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the amendment standing in the name of myself and my hon. Friends as "moderate". Will he now address him-self to a new development following on the acceptance of the amendment requiring a county count? Will this not mean a substantial saving of money? This is not the time to ask for more public money in view of the economic situation. Can the Minister say how much money will be saved as a result of there being a county count rather than a national one? In the circumstances, would it not be reasonable to make this initial sum of £125,000 available?

Mr. Price: The evidence available to us is that the saving will be small, certainly not sufficient to make any radical difference to the amount of money involved.

10.45 p.m.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: The estimate which has already been given of the central count is that it would cost at least £8 million, whereas, if we do a fair sum and take, for example two extreme constituencies like Argyll with the biggest number of polling stations and a city constituency like Cathcart which has two, approximately—[Interruption.]—two or three—a very small number—and then take the modest cost of local counts, with the small cost of hired halls and the known amount we pay to people to count for one period of count only, and add up the cost and multiply by half the number of Members of the House one gets a figure of less than half £8 million?

Mr. Price: The hon. Lady is quite wrong. She claims that the central count would cost £8 million. That is absolutely untrue.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: The hon. Gentle-man answered.

Mr. Price: That was the figure for the whole referendum and the best estimate we could get for a central count was £1 million, not £8 million. We have reason to believe that, compared with a local count, the savings would be minimal.

Mr. English: rose—

Mr. Price: I have to move on. I wish to deal with three other points made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central, asked how we arrived at the figure of £125,000. That came about as the result of many discussions with the political parties and the campaigning organisations. We did not get agreement, but as near a consensus as we could get.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) made serious allegations which we shall look into.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) says that he is opposed to any form of expenditure whatever, and that the people would vote against allocating any public money at all, but I suspect, and it is true in my constituency, that many of those same people will tell us that it is difficult to make a decision on the Market because of lack of information. It is to provide that information that we are spending £l¼ million.
For the reasons I have given, I hope that my hon. Friends will withdraw their amendments. If they are not able to do so, I ask the Committee to reject them.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 60, Noes 195.

Division No. 184.]
AYES
[10.50 p.m.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cryer, Bob
Flannery, Martin


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
English, Michael
George, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Hatton, Frank


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Henderson, Douglas


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, John (Newton)
Hooson, Emlyn


Clemitson, Ivor
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fernybough, Rt Hon E.
Kerr, Russell




Lambie, David
Roderick, Caerwyn
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Thompson, George


Lee, John
Rooker, J. W.
Torney, Tom


Litterick, Tom
Ryman, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian
Watt, Hamish


Madden, Max
Selby, Harry
Weetch, Ken


Marquand, David
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Welsh, Andrew


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Newens, Stanley
Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Noble, Mike
Stallard, A. W.



Ovenden, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Parry, Robert
Swain, Thomas
Mr. Doug Hoyle and


Richardson. Miss Jo
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. Roy Hughes.


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)






NOES


Anderson, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Oakes, Gordon


Archer, Peter
Golding, John
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Osborn, John


Atkinson, Norman
Grant, John (Islington C)
Palmer, Arthur


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grocott, Bruce
Park, George


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Bates, Alf
Hardy, Peter
Penhaligon, David


Bean, R. E.
Harper, Joseph
Perry, Ernest


Beith, A. J.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bishop, E. S.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Blaker, Peter
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Price, William (Rugby)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Radice, Giles


Boardman H.
Horam, John
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Booth, Albert
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boltomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brotherton, Michael
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Stephen (lsle of Wight)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Rowlands, Ted


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Buchanan, Richard
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Buck, Antony
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Budges, Nick
Janner, Greville
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Campbell, Ian
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cant, R. B.
John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Small, William


Cartwright, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Corbett, Robin
Judd, Frank
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lamborn, Harry
Stoddart, David


Cronin, John
Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Strang, Gavin


Davidson, Arthur
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lomas, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Luard, Evan
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Deakins, Eric
McCusker, H.
Tierney, Sydney


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Tomlinson, John


Delargy, Hugh
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Dell, Et Hon Edmund
Mackenzie, Gregor
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Dempsey, James
Maclennan Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dormand, J. D.
Magee, Bryan
Ward, Michael


Dunn, James A.
Mahon, Simon
Watkins, David


Dunnett, Jack
Marks, Kenneth
Weitzman, David


Dykes, Hugh
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wellbeloved, James


Edge, Geoff
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mates, Michael
White, James (Pollok)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mayhew, Patrick
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Emery, Peter
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Ennals, David
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Winterton, Nicholas


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Ford, Den
Molyneaux, James
Woodall, Alec


Forrester, John
Moonman, Eric
Woof, Robert


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Freud, Clement
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Miss Betty Boothroyd and


Gilbert, Dr John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.


Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 57, in page 3, line 6, leave out '£125,000' and insert '£250,000'.— [Mr. Alan Lee Williams.]

Question Put, That the amendement be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 81, Noes 161.

Division No. 185.]
AYES
[11.00 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Hooley, Frank
Selby, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Hooson, Emlyn
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Silverman, Julius


Atkinson, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Skinner, Dennis


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Beith, A. J.
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Spearing, Nigel


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Stallard, A. W.


Buchan, Norman
Kerr, Russell
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Lambie, David
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Canavan, Dennis
Lee, John
Swain, Thomas


Clemitson, Ivor
Litterick, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Loyden, Eddie
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cronin, John
McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, George


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Madden, Max
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marquand, David
Tinn, James


English, Michael
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Torney, Tom


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Newens, Stanley
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Noble, Mike
Watkins, David


Evans, John (Newton)
Ovenden, John
Watt, Hamish


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Parry, Robert
Weetch, Ken


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Radice, Giles
Welsh, Andrew


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Richardson. Miss Jo
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Flannery, Martin
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Roderick, Caerwyn



Forrester, John
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freud, Clement
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams and


George, Bruce
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Hatton, Frank
Ryman, John



Henderson, Douglas
Sedgemore, Brian





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Emery, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth


Armstrong, Ernest
Ennals, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McCusker, H.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank


Bates, Alf
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bean, R. E.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bishop, E. S.
Gilbert, Dr John
Maclennan Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ginsburg, David
Magee, Bryan


Boardman H.
Golding, John
Mahon, Simon


Booth, Albert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Brotherton, Michael
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mates, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hardy, Peter
Mawby, Ray


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Patrick


Buchanan, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Meacher, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Campbell, Ian
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mitchell. R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Cant, R. B.
Horam, John
Molyneaux, James


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Moonman, Eric


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunter, Adam
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Corbett, Robin
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Oakes, Gordon


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Ogden, Eric


Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Greville
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Osborn, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
John, Brynmor
Padley, Walter


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Palmer, Arthur


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Park, George


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Pavitt, Laurie


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Delargy, Hugh
Judd, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Perry, Ernest


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Phipps, Dr Colin


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Price, William (Rugby)


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas




Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stott, Roger
White, James (Pollok)


Rowlands, Ted
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Winterton, Nicholas


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Tierney, Sydney
Woodall, Alec


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Tomlinson, John
Woof, Robert


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Small, William
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Spriggs, Leslie
Ward, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wellbeloved, James
Miss Margaret Jackson and


Stoddart, David
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mr. John Ellis.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Chairman: The next amendment is No. 127.

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. Is not Amendment No. 66 the next on the list?

The Chairman: I should have explained that Amendment No. 127 was linked with Amendment No. 55, which was not called. Therefore, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) has not had an opportunity to express his point of view and I thought it fair to call him.

Mr. Walter Harrison: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. The hon. Gentle-man was not present at the time that Amendment No. 57 was called.

The Chairman: Unfortunately, neither was I.

Mr. Hoyle: I beg to move Amendment. No. 127, in page 3, line 8, at end insert:
'no other organisation specifically concerned with providing information about the EEC shall be supported by moneys provided by Parliament'.
The amendment is directed against the special information unit which the Government have set up. Many of us considered that it was a mistaken policy because we believed that it would be, and would be seen to be, a propaganda machine for the Government. Our worst fears have been realised.
The London Letter in The Guardian of 19th April states:
Remember the witty little paragraph on Thursday noting that the EEC had decided to give 490 tons of skimmed milk powder to the starving of Vietnam and adding that the EEC had a skimmed milk powder mountain of 400,000 tons which the Commissioners didn't know how to handle and some of which is said to be rotting? Well, yesterday, the government's national referendum unit phoned us pointing out a number of 'serious errors' in the story. Like what? Well, none of that

mountain is rotting, 490 tons is quite a lot when you think about it, the Vietnamese have got a good deal of the stuff already, many Asians are allergic to skimmed milk powder and it is not very good for babies anyway.
Now the national referendum unit is an information centre set up by the government and run by civil servants to answer 'questions of fact' posed by reporters of the public.
I emphasise that because it goes on to say:
The Commission has its own first rate and very active information unit in London headed by ex-Guardian man Mike Lake. Lake did not think it worth raising these 'serious errors' with us. So why, we asked Martin Morland, head of the national referendum unit, was his staff now doing Lake's job for him and was this to be a general policy?
Morland tells us that the call from his office was 'a one off job' because he did not want Commission policies to appear 'lunatic'. And he certainly had not chosen London Letter for his one off job because twenty-four hours earlier we had carried another story raising doubts about the accuracy of answers given by his unit on EEC energy policy.
Here is a departure from the White Paper. The Government said in the White Paper that it was
expected that there will be a substantial additional flow of requests to the Government for factual information, interpretation of the re-negotiated terms and the like from the Press, radio, television and interested organisations and individuals,
and that they would set up a special information unit to deal with such requests.
11.15 p.m.
Here we have a report from which one gathers that although there were no such requests, because it was considered that the information was not very accurate, the Government information unit was volunteering information without being asked. What has it become but a propaganda machine not for the Government but for the Commission, which is even worse. The Government are putting the civil servants into an impossible position. The Government should now drop the idea. Having decided to give money to both sides, they should now allow the answers to the questions to be given by both sides.
The special information unit is not only doing a factual job, in that its answers are being questioned; it is also interfering in matters which do not concern it. I am therefore asking that this matter be reconsidered and that the special information unit be suspended. It is not necessary. We should relieve the civil servants of this onerous duty and put them to more useful and fruitful tasks. Indeed, we should allow the two organisations to get on with answering genuine questions and give all the information that is required.

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

Mr. English: My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) has pointed out the existence of this special information unit. It really is the biggest single decline in public morality relating to elections since probably 1832. The Government have decided to conduct a voting process in the same manner in which 18th century Governments did.
I have mentioned the question of bias. Presumably the bias results from fear on the part of the little minority of 16 who constitute the Cabinet and currently call themselves the Government. Can one imagine such a situation in a General Election in which a little group of civil servants give not merely factual answers to requests but also, according to the White Paper, interpretations of Government policy? Just imagine.
Hon. Members opposite do not realise the precedent that they are accepting. On this basis we can set up a little unit of civil servants during the next election to give interpretations of our case when they are fighting the election against us. That is how Government fought elections in the 18th century, and in the 18th century no Government ever lost an election. No Government lost an election between 1715 and 1830, a period of office which was rather excessive by our modern standards.
During the latter half of the 19th century a different attitude arose—an attitude which replaced corruption with a sense of public morality. Bribery disappeared to a substantial extent from our Civil Service. The civil servants became the impartial supporters of whichever political

party was in office. Now the Government tell them "We are appealing to the electorate and you must take part only on one side." The Minister, in replying to the last debate, said that Governments have a right to present their own case. He was talking about the pamphlets which are to be sent out. He forgets that we got that idea from the Australian Referendum Acts, and that there the Government put their own case. It is usually the "Yes" case, and the Opposition put the "No" case.
We have the only Government who have to put the case twice, because they are so frightened, a Government consisting of 16 men in the Cabinet who find that they do not even command a majority of Ministers under them, never mind the majority in their party. They are so frightened that they have to spend £1 million on biassing the case in one direction, and recruit the Civil Service for the first time into electoral politics. It is bad morality. It is based on fear, and it should not be.

Mr. William Price: Somebody must answer the questions. There are many coming in. We had more than a thousand questions in the first two weeks from the Press and the public. We set up the information unit because we felt that the task would best be carried out centrally. It was as simple as that.
The unit answers questions factually. It is supervised by senior Ministers.

Mr. English: Which?

Mr. Price: There is no great secret about that. Surely people are entitled to information, and some of us believe that we have a duty to provide it.

Mr. English: Information on both sides, or only one?

Mr. Price: I understand that the terms of reference of the unit are to provide the facts, whether they support the Government's case or not. If hon. Members provide information on cases of deliberate distortion of the facts to suit the Government's case, we shall look into it closely.
I have the distinct impression that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) would object very strongly if we told people the time of day.
What we are saying is that this is not a propaganda unit, as has been alleged, and we ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. English: Before my hon. Friend sits down—

The Deputy Chairman: The Minister has already sat down.

Mr. English: As my hon. Friend referred to me, I thought that he was allowing me to intervene. If he thinks that I invented the theory about the unit's giving out propaganda, how does he interpret the passage in the White Paper saying that it existed to respond to requests for "factual information" and to give "interpretations" of the Government's case. It is the Government who have said that it is to provide propaganda as well as facts.

Mr. Price: I do not believe that that interpretation is correct. People will ask for clarification of the most basic facts, and I understand that that is what the civil servants are giving.

Mr. Spearing: Before my hon. Friend sits down—

The Deputy Chairman: The Minister has sat down, as everybody can see.

Mr. Madden: Can my hon. Friend tell us how many officers have been seconded to the unit, and from which Departments they have been seconded? Are all the major Departments concerned with the renegotiated terms represented in the unit?

Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Hands-worth): Is this most convenient device to be repeated at a General Election, so that we can make certain that it is tilted in our favour? I am sure that Opposition Members will be interested in the answer to that.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Price: rose—

The Deputy Chairman: Let us take all the questions before the Minister replies.

Mr. Price: May I not take the easy ones first?

Mr. Spearing: I do not follow the Minister's argument in reply to the question about interpretation put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). This relates to the passage in the White Paper which was objected to both formally and informally in many parts of this building because, although we look sometimes to the Government to provide factual information, it was clearly stated in the White Paper that the duty of this unit would be to interpret the Government's view.
Plainly, in the forthcoming arguments about this matter, on many questions of fact and policy interpretation will be crucial. I shall give the Committee two short examples.
The first relates to the extent to which the European Community is committed to economic and monetary union. We have the Foreign Secretary's version, yet in the Press today we read reports about progress being made towards that very end. I suppose that it would be in order for this unit, in answer to an inquiry on the matter, to give a handout of the Foreign Secretary's speeches on the subject, but whether it would also provide information about recent reports from the EEC is another question.
There is also the matter of interpretation, on which the Prime Minister has been challenged time and again by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and myself, concerning direct elections to the European Assembly. It is clear by implication from the Paris communiquéé after the last summit that if the vote on Europe is "Yes" this country will be almost certainly committed to direct elections to the European Assembly. According to the White Paper, however, any genuine inquirer to the Government's unit would not necessarily receive that reply, because it cannot be categorically proved. Everyone knows that that is the political position, yet even the Prime Minister has not at the Dispatch Box when charged with it categorically stated it as a fact.
In my view, therefore, the inclusion of the word "interpretation" both in the White Paper and in the Minister's replies tonight bodes very ill not only for a referendum battle fought cleanly and properly but also for the reputation of those


members of the Government supporting this part of the Bill.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Although I listened carefully, I did not find in the Minister's remarks any real explanation for this unit. For my part, I welcome the bias which is coming out of it, but the Minister ought to realise that he has set a dangerous precedent, with the state that the Government and the Labour Party are in. It is grossly unfair to throw in civil servants to act as umpire in this battle. Why does he feel bound to support the setting up of the unit in this way?

Mr. Ron Thomas: On the question of interpretation, I refer again to the "London Letter" in The Guardian—the regular little piece on this debate which it publishes each day—and I take the issue of 16th April. A straightforward question was put to the information unit as follows:
Will we be allowed to discriminate in favour of home-based industries by permitting them access to this oil "—
that is, North Sea oil—
at more favourable prices than we charge for exporting it?
The reply given was:
The Government intend to dispose of North Sea oil at the market price. Differential pricing would involve a significant departure from Government policy".
That does not answer the straightforward question "Will we be allowed to discriminate"—this or any other Government? Like the White Paper, it gives a completely misleading answer. I do not know that the House has decided that the Government should dispose of North Sea oil at the market price. I do not know that we have ever made a decision on that, and we may want to make a different decision. Should we be allowed to do so as members of the Common Market?
Second, where do the information and interpretations which are being given fit in with my hon. Friend's scheme of things in relation to his belief that both radio and television will give equal time to both sides? Where do the information and interpretations that are given to the radio and television by this unit fit into the Minister's spectrum of objectivity? So far as I can judge, and I do not know how much information they have had

from this unit, both radio and television devote far more time to the pro-Market view, but they do so by suggesting that it is unbiased information. No doubt it comes from a unit of this kind.
11.30 p.m.
That sort of thing is contrary to the statement that we made in the Labour manifesto, which was that, irrespective of what was negotiated in Brussels, the British people would make the final choice, and I took that to mean that the Government would take a neutral and not this completely pro-Market stance.

Mr. Powell: The Minister's reply so far has not been in any way proportionate to the great seriousness of the matter that the amendment brings before the Committee. I do not think that it will be disputed by those on either side of the issue that the impartiality of civil servants on matters maintained by the expenditure of public money is of equal interest to all concerned and something that we must jealously protect.
Attention has been drawn to the fact that the remit of this unit is incapable of being factually discharged. It is not that we are accusing the civil servants of bending their remit. The fact is that the remit given to them is inherently subjective.
The words, which have not yet been precisely quoted, in the White Paper are:
interpretation of the renegotiated terms and the like".
Obviously, interpretation of the renegotiated terms must include an explanation of how those terms will work out as time goes on. There are many possible interpretations, all necessarily subjective, of the way in which the renegotiated terms will operate in the next three months and the next three years. Yet this unit is set up in order to give an interpretation.
By its nature, such an interpretation will be either more or less favourable to the case for Britain remaining in the Community; it cannot be otherwise. Those who are giving these interpretations will have a choice to make and its nature will be such that it should be taken only by Ministers and not shouldered on to civil servants, whether within those parameters they lean towards a more or less favourable "interpretation". "Interpretation" is the word but, of course, in essence it is


an assessment of how the future will work out.
The Government have to address themselves to this issue much more seriously than the Minister seemed prepared to do.
There is a further suggestion that could be administratively fulfilled if we go on with this unit in any form. It is that the information supplied by the unit should be rendered available for scrutiny by hon. Members. I presume that a record of the replies is kept. It is only fair and right, and only fair and right to those who are operating the unit, that it should be possible to judge how the work is being discharged. I hope that the Government will at any rate confirm that there will be a record of the information that is given and that that information will he placed in the Library of the House so that hon. Members may form their own judgments.

Mr. Jay: I agree with those who have said that the Minister does not seem to be taking this issue seriously enough. He seemed almost flippant in his approach.
It is one thing for a Civil Service information unit to give genuinely factual answers to questions from the public, and that has always been done, and quite another to give interpretations of policy, and the word "interpretation" is used in the White Paper. It is different again not merely to give interpretations in answer to questions but to approach the Press or the public to volunteer interpretations, described in one instance as sheer propaganda.
Therefore, I think that the Minister ought to give us an answer. He should tell us whether it is right that this information unit has on one occasion approached a newspaper and volunteered a statement of this kind, or whether it has not. If it has, I think it is quite wrong, and the Minister should answer the questions that have been asked. I warn him that if the Government push these unfair practices much further many

people will not accept the result of the referendum as fair or binding.

Mr. Eric Moonman: I am sure that there is genuine concern about this matter, but perhaps it is rather a question of the competence of the people who are performing the task. Nothing that I have heard so far suggests that the main issue is one of bias. If any of us has to deal with constituents' complaints about the way in which individual Departments handle their inquiries it will be a far more important task to try to establish exactly how individual officers of Departments deal with them.
If the Minister has to answer any point it is not the point dealt with earlier by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I could not imagine how anyone could record all the answers to the theoretical requests which might be made. But it would be helpful if the Minister would give some indication of the level of grading and the position of the people concerned. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about the way in which answers are given will be more concerned with that than with imagining that some sort of bogy or bias will creep into this information.

Mr. William Price: I recognise that this is a serious matter and I wish to be as fair and objective as possible. I have already offered—I repeat that offer—to look closely into all the matters raised in the debate, and any matters of bias, alleged or otherwise, concerning Members in the future. At this stage it is difficult to go much further than that. I shall have each and every question investigated thoroughly.

Mr. Spearing: And the details put in the Library?

Question put. That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 63, Noes 164.

Division No. 186.]
AYES
[11.38 p.m.


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
English, Michael
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bennett. Andrew (Stockport N)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Kerr, Russell


Brotherton, Michael
Evans, John (Newton)
Lee, John


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin
Litterick, Tom


Callaghan. Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loyden, Eddie


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce
McCusker, H.


Clemitson, Ivor
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McNamara, Kevin


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hatton, Frank
Marten, Neil


Cryer, Bob
Henderson, Douglas
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)




Molyneaux, James
Rooker, J. W.
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Newens, Stanley
Ryman, John
Townsend, Cyril D.


Noble, Mike
Selby, Harry
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ovenden, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Watt, Hamish


Parry, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Weetch, Ken


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Silverman, Julius
Welsh, Andrew


Reid, George
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Richardson. Miss Jo
Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie
Young, David (Bolton E)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roderick, Caerwyn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. Max Madden and


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Thompson, George
Mr. Ron Thomas.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Archer, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Armstrong, Ernest
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Oakes, Gordon


Ashley, Jack
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ogden, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Hayman, Mrs Helene
O'Halloran, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hooson, Emlyn
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Bates, Alf
Horam, John
Osborn, John


Beith, A. J.
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Huckfield, Les
Park, George


Bishop, E. S.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Penhaligon, David


Boardman H.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Perry, Ernest


Booth, Albert
Hunter, Adam
Phipps, Dr Colin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hurd, Douglas
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Radice, Giles


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Buchanan, Richard
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Campbell, Ian
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Cartwright, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silkin, RI Hon John (Deptford)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Judd, Frank
Small, William


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lambie, David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cronin, John
Lamborn, Harry
Stallard, A. W.


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Leadbitter, Ted
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Stott, Roger


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lomas, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Luard, Evan
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Tinn, James


Dormand, J. D.
McElhone, Frank
Tomlinson, John


Dunn, James A.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Edge, Geoff
Mackenzie, Gregor
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Maclennan Robert
Ward, Michael


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Magee, Bryan
Wellbeloved, James


Ennals, David
Mahon, Simon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marks, Kenneth
White, James (Pollok)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marquand, David
William, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wilsson, William (Coventry SE)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Meacher, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Freud, Clement
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Woodall, Alec


Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Woof, Robert


Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wriggiesworth, Ian


Golding, John
Moonman, Eric



Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. David Stoddart and


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. James Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Beith: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 3, line 16, at end add—
'(3) The Lord President of the Council may, with the consent of the Treasury, make to each political party as defined in subsection (4) here-

of a grant sufficient to meet the costs of printing publishing and posting to each qualifying voter in England or in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, where such party in the General Election of October 1974 polled more than five per cent. of the votes validly cast, a statement of not more than 1,000 words explaining that party's views on the question to be asked in the referendum.


(4) For the purposes of this Act a political party is any party which in England, or in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland polled a total of more than five per cent. of the votes validly cast in the General Election of October 1974.'.
The reason for the amendment is to draw attention to the important rôle which the political parties should be playing, and which they hope to play, in the referendum campaign. We have talked a great deal about the umbrella organisations but we should not overlook the fact that for a long time the political parties have shouldered the burden of political education and the forming of political ideas. The referendum, more than anything else, is an occasion when they will have to hear that burden.
It is an occasion when their supporters will look for guidance as to which way they should vote. The regular supporters in particular are entitled to expect this. The party influence is such that its views will be of some significance. The views of the umbrella organisations do not necessarily correspond to those of the political parties. There are a number of different cases which hon. Members should consider.
I quote our own case first, but it is the least complicated and difficult. The Liberal Party's views about the future of Europe are not identical to those of the Conservative Party. We would speak in rather stronger terms about the need, for example, for direct elections to the European Parliament than some Conservative Members. But there are more striking problems when we come to the Labour Party. Labour Members might like to consider, as they await Saturday's deliberations, the situation they face. The Labour Party is entitled not only to come to a view about British membership but to express that view and have the means of doing so. I would have thought that some Labour Members would want to differentiate their views from some of their hon. Friends.
Clearly the reasons why the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) might be opposed to Britain remaining in the EEC will differ from the reasons of some Labour Members. The Ulster Unionist Coalition is entitled to state its views, just as much as the Labour Party. The Scottish National Party has quite a different view about why Britain should

not remain in the EEC. These are distinct from those of the umbrella organisations.
While I do not agree with all the criticism made of the umbrella organisations, the fact remains that they are not the same things as political parties. They do not have the same bases. They arrive at some sort of common view. In many parts of the Committee there are differences between the views of the parties and the umbrella organisations. It seems reasonable and necessary that the parties should have some means of conveying their distinctive views to the electorate.
That is the purpose of the amendment. It seeks to provide a means of delivering to the electorate a statement of the views of the parties. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has looked into the practical implications and even the costs. It is because of the cost that I suggest a way in which he might meet the spirit of the amendment without being obliged to accept it in detail.
A simple way of enabling the political parties to send their views to the electorate is to include with the "pro" and "anti" statements that are to be sent to all households a statement of their views. Each party, as defined in the amendment. could have the opportunity to submit 500 or 1.000 words giving its views. The Government have already committed themselves to circularise every household.

Mr. Joseph Dean: How could this be done when there is a different opinion in every party on the issue?

Mr. Beith: I would have thought that the hon. Member would agree that when the Labour Party has arrived at its views, when it comes to a constitutional decision, it is entitled to state that view. There are differences within the party but that does not take away from its right to present a view. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the case for allowing the parties to present their views to the electorate.

Mr. William Price: The drafting of the amendment is somewhat obscure. The intention appears to be to treat each of the countries of the United Kingdom separately and to extend the benefit to any political party which polled 5 per cent. of the votes cast in that country


in the October 1974 General Election. As a corollary it seems that it is proposed only that the distribution should be to the voters in that part of the United Kingdom. Thus the Scottish National Party, which polled 30 per cent. of the votes cast in Scotland in October, would be entitled to distribute leaflets to all Scottish electors although its percentage of the total votes cast in the United Kingdom was just under 3 per cent.
As drafted, however, the amendment appears to extend only to parties which obtained 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom vote and to entitle them to issue a leaflet, at Government expense, to all United Kingdom electors. The difference between what is intended and what the amendment achieves can be seen from the voting figures from the last General Election. These show that, under the presumed intention of the amendment, the Scottish National Party would qualify in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales. In Northern Ireland the position is more complicated. The United Ulster Unionist Coalition, the SDLP and Alliance would qualify but the rest would fail, including the Labour Party there. On the other hand, as the amendment is drafted, only the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Parties would qualify. The cost of preparing and issuing such statements to every voter would be likely to amount to several million pounds, and those opposed to the Market could well argue that this was yet another attempt to inflict one side of the fence on the people. That would be a legitimate argument.
The Government's proposed distribution of a popular version of the White Paper will cost over £1 million, and this will only be going to separate households. To issue a copy to every voter would not only involve multiplying the number of copies to be distributed considerably but would involve addressing them to each individual voter, and at considerable expense.
Already, with the printing under way, nearly 50 firms are involved. That is a major operation. It may be argued by some of my colleagues that we should not be doing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear.] Fair enough. But the position

is that we are doing it and that there are 50 printing firms already involved. To add to that would be practically an impossibility.
To provide these arrangements for the three main parties and the national parties in the separate parts of the United Kingdom would be prohibitively expensive, and on practical grounds it would be impossible to achieve such a circulation before polling day.

Mr. Clement Freud: The hon. Member mentioned the printing of a popular version of the White Paper In view of what has gone on tonight, would he like to say with whom this would be popular?

Mr. Price: My Alsatian would have done better than that.
I should add that the provision of grants to the two campaigning organisations is our first venture in giving assistance from public funds to organisations outside Parliament, and we want to move carefully until we have the report of the committee now being set up on that issue. That is another reason why the Liberal amendment is not appropriate and should be resisted on grounds of principle, finance and practicability.

Mr. Emery: The Minister said one thing which stirred me to my feet. For clarity, do I understand that he spoke of 50 firms being already committed to the work on the pocket edition of the White Paper? That was the impression I got and other hon. Members will have got. I hope that that matter can be corrected immediately.

Mr. Price: There are two other documents containing the case for and the case against. That is three documents, totalling 60 million copies. It is a lot of printing.

Mr. Emery: Under what authority have the Government proceeded with this? It seems to me that the money to be provided by the Government to do this arises from this Bill. Until the Bill has received the assent of Parliament it would be constitutionally quite incorrect for the Government to be undertaking expenditure arising from the Bill. I hope that the Minister can explain this point.

12 midnight.

Mr. Price: Certainly. It is a perfectly fair and proper point. What we have done is make advance plans. It is extremely difficult to get paper in the sort of quantity required. To get 25 million envelopes, which is what the amendment would require, is at present an impossibility. We have made our plans. There will be 50 printing firms involved. But, clearly, if the Bill falls we shall not go ahead with the printing.

Mr. Beith: The Minister seems obsessed with the drafting of the amendment. We employ civil servants to draft amendments, so the Government could table a similar amendment on Report. I have suggested a cheaper way of doing this which would meet the objection. In the very same envelope in which this impressive statement is to be sent out, or in whatever way it is to be sent out, there could be enclosed the statements from the parties to which I have referred. Instead of being so obsessed with our admitted limitations of drafting capability, the Minister should have addressed himself to the way in which effect could be given to the purpose of the amendment and said whether he disapproved of the intention and, if so, why.

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman has it wrong. We have no intention of sending out these three documents—

Mr. Beith: It would save paper.

Mr. Price: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman wants them to be sent to every voter. If that were to be done, one would have to put them in envelopes and address the envelopes. We have no intention of doing that. There is nothing new about what we are doing.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) asked on a previous occasion whether one could be certain that the material would be delivered. Clearly, one cannot be certain that every household will get a copy. But there have been two occasions recently when the Home Office has put out leaflets via the Post Office, door to door, and this proved very successful.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that all the 50 firms which are printing these

referendum kits are union members?

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed. That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Powell: The Committee should not part with the clause without at any rate a brief explanation from the Government of the way in which subsection (2) will operate.
It was clear from an earlier debate that there was some misunderstanding of this in the Committee, since at least one hon. Member claimed that this represented a control upon expenditure by the umbrella organisations. What does seem clear from the clause as to subsection (2) is that not only are the sums granted by this clause to be accounted for but also all the other expenditure of the umbrella bodies is to be accounted for and, as the curious phrase goes, "made available for publication."
I should be obliged if the Minister could explain to what use this information will be put. It clearly is not being used to limit the total of expenditure nor the sources from which the wherewithal is to be obtained. Equally clearly, it is not to be the basis of a judgment on the part of the Government how much of the £125,000 they will pay out, altogether or at any particular time, to either of these organisations, since clearly that payment will have to be made before the full accounts can be known, let alone published.
It is also not clear whether the Government intend to publish these accounts or only to hold over those who render them the threat that they may be published.
It would not be satisfactory for us to part with the clause until we have clear answers from the Government to those three questions.

Mr. English: he point to which I should like to refer is also related to subsection (2), which again seems to differ from and to be more limited than the statement made by the Prime Minister originally in the House of Commons, in which he said that he was determined to see that the amounts of money spent on this campaign were publicly declared. He said that it was difficult to limit expenditure on advertising or postal costs and hoped that such provision would be declared.
The principle of such action is now different. It is now possible for either of the organisations not to declare the sums which they receive or spend if they decide not to take a grant. The grant is so ridiculously small that a wealthy organisation might be tempted to take that course, if only to protect its subscribers.
Let us suppose that both organisations take the £125,000. The conditions laid down in Clause 3 will then come into operation. The conditions relate to:
the sums received or spent for the purpose of the referendum since 26th March 1975.
Unfortunately, the conditions were not specified by 26th March, and it may be difficult for anyone to provide such particulars.
I am in favour of as much retrospection as possible in the clause. However, the situation is difficult because my right hon. Friend did not publish his specifications before the date to which they relate. It may be difficult to relate them backwards. I do not know whether provision will be made for that point.
The conditions clearly relate to the £125,000 and all sums received and spent, since the phrase used in Clause 3(2)(b) is:
the persons from whom any such sums were received.
However, the only body providing the £125,000 is the Exchequer. Presumably it relates to all sums received and to all persons to whom such sums were paid. I believe that the draftsmen should look again at this passage between now and Report because the subsection is badly drafted.
The National Referendum Campaign and Britain in Europe are supposed to account for sums received and spent for the purposes of the referendum. Presumably that refers by implication to the sums spent by any persons. Yet there is no provision saying that the people who spend money for the purposes of the referendum should inform those who must account for it. This is a technical matter. I feel that the clause should be redrafted since if it is ever taken to court it will make a lawyers' paradise.
The Prime Minister wanted the figures to be published so that people would know who was contributing to each side during the referendum campaign. If the

National Front contributed to our funds the fact would be apparent and we should be justifiably criticised for that. If many large companies contributed to Britain in Europe the fact would become known. They might be criticised for having a vested interest. Since the details are not likely to be published until after the referendum, there is not much point in this proposal.

Mr. Edward Short: The subsection is perfectly well drafted. There is no need to refer it to the draftsmen. The draftsmen drafted it, and it serves its purpose adequately.
The Committee will know that I have already published the conditions in Hansard. I will explain what the conditions are. The first and most important condition is the requirement that the grants may be used only for purposes connected with the referendum, not with other political objectives. The reason is to prevent any money percolating into a political party from either of the two campaigning organisations.
Secondly, the organisations must keep accounts of all sums received or spent for the purposes of the referendum since 26th March. The accounts must show the persons from whom any such sums were received and the persons to whom any such sums were paid. I felt that it would be unreasonable to require the oranisations to show every small amount. Therefore, I decided to have a de minimis rule in, and we have excepted sums of less than £100.
The accounts for audit for the period must be made available within two months of the referendum. It was originally one month. At the request of one of the organisations, I extended the period to two months. I felt that it was in the public interest that all the income and expenditure of the campaigning organisations should be shown. Therefore, if they are prepared to accept the subvention from public funds, they must publish all their accounts, income and expenditure, since 26th March.

Mr. Marten: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the campaigning organisations, do I take it that he is referring to the two umbrella organisations, not others around the country which may be affiliated, associated, or anything like that?

Mr. Short: I got into trouble in the House when I referred to umbrella organisations last time, so I referred to campaigning organisations this time.
The accounts, when submitted, will be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. For this purpose, he must be given all reasonable access which he may require to the books of the organisations, and the accounts will be available for publication. It is my intention that they should be published. I shall publish them later this summer.
Both organisations have accepted these conditions. They have been told that their grants may now be drawn upon, as needed, as soon as Clause 3 has been approved in Committee. To draw upon the grants they will have to submit signed applications to the effect that they have got at least £X of bills or immediate commitments requiring payment. This is the normal procedure when money from public funds is being given to voluntary organisations. On receipt of applications, the money will be paid to the organisations within two days. Any unspent money, after the referendum, will have to be returned.
The Committee will see that these conditions are tight, but fair. I do not believe that there will be any breach of these conditions. But, in the last resort, Parliament will be able to bring to account not only me but the Chairman of the National Referendum Campaign and the Home Secretary in his capacity of President of Britain in Europe. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Jay: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him to confirm one point in view of what was said earlier? Am I right in assuming that the clause provides for records but not for control of the expenditure by the two bodies, whether from private or public funds?

Mr. Short: I discussed the possibility of controlling expenditure with most of the people who came to see me about it, though perhaps not with my right hon. Friend. We looked at this point very carefully, but came to the conclusion that so many people are involved in the campaigns and so many organisations, not all under the umbrellas, that it would be

impossible to devise a credible system to control expenditure.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Emery: I accept the methods which the Leader of the House has set out for attempting to control expenditure, and I accept also that any Member of the House who is concerned has control in one of the umbrella organisations, but I do not believe that anybody in this House can suggest for a moment that, let us say, the Home Secretary can be expected to have detailed control over how the money is spent. I believe that much of this money may be put out through these organisations to other bodies, and even to political parties.
There is no penalty in the Bill, nor is there any sanction, other than to be summoned to this House. It seems to me, therefore, that if any sections of the umbrella organisation do not bother to keep accounts and do not accord with the conditions which the Home Secretary has set out there will be nothing that we can do to bring them to account. Indeed, the money will have been spent, the campaign will be over, and that will be that. I find that a rather unsatisfactory situation, and one which I must bring to the attention of the Committee.
The second matter is much more serious and concerns the whole principle of the clause that we are debating. We are here, at fifteen minutes past midnight, entering into a new principle in political campaigning in this country. We are allowing taxpayers' money to be spent by political parties and to be provided to them for a political campaign. I believe that that is not the wish of the majority of people in this country. I believe that if there were some way of expressing their opinion by a vote the majority of people would say "Bad enough the referendum, but three times worse that taxpayers' money is to be used for political purposes in this referendum".
The Minister agreed with that a short while ago. He thought I was right but, none the less, he said that many of those who would be condemning the expenditure would be those who were saying "We do not understand what the referendum is about". I do not believe that that, as the Minister implied, is the reason for providing the money. If people wish to be informed, there are a hundred and


one ways of finding out without having to provide taxpayers' money to enable them to do so.

Mr. Marten: Did my hon. Friend object to the money that was paid by the previous Conservative Government for a thing called Festival of Europe, where we had concerts in churches and that sort of thing?

Mr. Emery: I was not under the impression at that time that it was a political campaign. [Interruption.] It is strange how certain Members attempt to draw conclusions. There was no political propaganda at that time to try to influence a vote. That is a fact, and nobody can deny it. What I am saying is that this is expenditure which is being given direct to political organisations to enable them to attempt to influence people in the way that they vote.
My hon. Friend will live to rue the day that he supported this proposal. I visualise hon. Members opposite and the Liberal Party urging the provision of more and more taxpayers' money for political parties. This is the foot in the door. I forecast that this is not the last that we shall have heard of political parties wanting contributions to be made to them so that their case can be better understood by the electorate.
It would be entirely incorrect that this clause should stand part of the Bill. I urge my supporters to vote against it. I am only sorry—[HON. MEMBERS: "So are we."] I could go on for a long time—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. As long as the Chair is looking at the hon. Gentleman he should carry on—and I can hear him quite clearly.

Mr. Emery: I am delighted, Sir Myer; but I would want everybody, not just you and me to have a private conversation.
I am sorry that my party is not officially objecting to the clause, because it should be. The majority of hon. Members are not in favour of it and I shall have great pleasure in opposing it.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Any amount of money may be spent by any individual, any group of individuals, any political party or any other institution on promoting a cause in the referendum cam-

paign. The only people subject to any control or supervision are the two organisations named in the clause. That means that there are tremendous opportunities for institutions and firms and others who do not enjoy the patronage of these two groups to indulge a campaign and spend much more money than is provided for under the Bill.

Mr. Budgen: As I have made clear, I wish to be associated most warmly with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery).
The Lord President blandly said that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) would be responsible to the House of Commons for the National Referendum Campaign and that the Home Secretary would be responsible to it for Britain in Europe. He made that assertion without backing it up. Is he saying that these organisations have the same constitutional relationship as a Ministry has to its Minister and that, therefore, the front man, if I may so call the president of such an organisation, is responsible to the House of Commons? Or is he saying that he understands and knows what the constitution of each of these umbrella organisations is and, therefore, the president has legal responsibility for each act which an individual member of these organisations has done? Or is he using that phrase in the loosest, most casual, way without saying what he means?
I cannot understand how the Home Secretary or my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury can in any meaningful sense be responsible for their respective organisations.

The Chairman: The Question is—

Mr. Emery: We are in Committee, and this is a serious matter. It is the Government's decision that we should be sitting at this hour. The Government, if they wish to comply with the normal decencies in Committee, should answer our questions.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: There is present only one representative of the Liberal Party, which is supposed to represent between 5 million and 6 million people. There is no Welsh Nationalist or SNP representative present.
There is only one member of the Ulster Unionist Party present. The Government have made their case, and we should get on with the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 195, Noes 9.

Division No. 187.]
AYES
[12.25 a.m.


Archer, Peter
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Park, George


Armstrong, Ernest
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parry, Robert


Ashton, Joe
Hatton, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Atkinson, Norman
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Penhaligon, David


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hooson, Emlyn
Perry, Ernest


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Bates, Alf
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Bean, R. E.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Price, William (Rugby)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Radice, Giles


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Richardson. Miss Jo


Bishop, E. S.
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Booth, Albert
Janner, Greville
Roderick, Caerwyn


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rooker, J. W.


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
John, Brynmor
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Buchan, Norman
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rowlands, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ryman, John


Campbell, Ian
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sedgemore, Brian


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cant, R. B.
Judd, Frank
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cartwright, John
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Lambie, David
Silverman, Julius


Clemitson, Ivor
Lamborn, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Lamond, James
Small, William


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Corbett, Robin
Lee, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Litterick, Tom
Spriggs, Leslie


Crawshaw, Richard
Lomas, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Cronin, John
Loyden, Eddie
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cryer, Bob
Luard, Evan
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davidson, Arthur
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stoddart, David


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McElhone, Frank
Stott, Roger


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Deakins, Eric
Mackenzie, Gregor
Swain, Thomas


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Maclennan Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dempsey, James
Madden, Max
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dunnett, Jack
Magee, Bryan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Edge, Geoff
Mahon, Simon
Tinn, James


Ellis, John (Bring &amp; Scun)
Marks, Kenneth
Tomlinson, John


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marquand, David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


English, Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ennals, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Meacher, Michael
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Michael


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Watt, Hamish


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Weetch, Ken


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Welsh, Andrew


Forrester, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
White, James (Pollok)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Freud, Clement
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


George, Bruce
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gilbert, Dr John
Noble, Mike
Woodall, Alec


Ginsburg, David
Hardy, Peter
Woof, Robert


Golding, John
Harper, Joseph
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Grant, John (Islington C)
Oakes, Gordon
Young, David (Bolton E)


Grocott, Bruce
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ovenden, John
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. J. D. Dormand.




NOES


Brotherton, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mates, Michael
Mr. Peter Emery and


Goodhart, Philip
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Nick Budgen.


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Winterton, Nicholas



Lawrence, Ivan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Peyton: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I move the motion not out of a desire unduly to delay proceedings but simply to give the Leader of the House a chance to state the Government's intentions with regard to the Bill. He has made reasonable progress with a measure which is highly controversial. [HON. MEMBERS: "Finish it now."] The right hon. Gentleman's most serious handicap is his Friends. I could not be more sorry for him.
As you well recognise, Sir Myer, having been here rather longer than some of the hon. Members who are attempting —[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It is now said, Sir Myer, that you have been here too long.

The Deputy Chairman: I am beginning to think that myself.

Mr. Peyton: I appreciate that, Sir Myer. I was endeavouring to point out that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are not helping themselves, their Front Bench or anyone else by continuing to interrupt me. I have said that I intended to speak only briefly, but if they provoke me into going on a great deal longer—[Interruption.] Just so long as they wish to continue making an exhibition of themselves, I am quite prepared to stand here listening and watching to enjoy this revelation of the true character of the party below the Gangway.

Mr. Michael McGuire: What about the right hon. Gentleman's party below the Gangway?

Mr. Peyton: The fact is that there are more than half a dozen on the hon. Gentleman's side. If he wishes to rise and interrupt me, I shall give way.
I was urging upon the right hon. Gentleman that he has made good progress with a highly controversial Bill, and there is very little left to do now. Is it his intention to require the attendance of so many of his hon. Friends in order to push the rump of this measure through Committee at a late hour of the night? I imagine that he will concede that

throughout the proceedings the Opposition have done nothing to impede the progress of the Bill. It is not our intention to do so because, although we deeply disapprove of the underlying principle of the Bill, we none the less believe that it is generally accepted throughout the world that there is to be a referendum and we should not wish unduly to delay that event.
I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say that he accepts—

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Get on with the business of the Committee.

Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt me, I shall give way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, think that it would not be unwise to accept the motion. However, I tell him at once that if he feels that he must press on, we on this side would not wish to give him undue difficulties. These will undoubtedly continue to come from the same quarter as hitherto, namely, from his own supporters.

Mr. Edward Short: The hour is late and we have made a fair amount of progress, but I am afraid that I must ask the Committee to continue with the Bill. We must get the Committee stage completed tonight. We finished at a reasonably early hour last night, but I said that we did so on condition that we finished the Committee stage tonight.
I am sorry. I do not like going to a late hour, especially with a Bill of this importance. I have explained the difficulties of the parliamentary timetable. It is an extremely tight timetable. I believe that it is in the interests of the country to have the referendum as quickly as possible. If we are to have it on 5th June, we must get the Bill through the Commons this week, and, therefore, it must have its Report stage and Third Reading tomorrow.
I am sorry about this, and I apologise to hon. Members for keeping them up. However, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has said, there is not very much more. There is no important principle left. I think that if we all apply ourselves we can get through the remaining amendments and new clauses reasonably quickly and go home to bed.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members should realise that the debate would not be complete without the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery).

Mr. Emery: As I have attempted to do the whole day, I shall try to be helpful. I have not spoken for more than 11 minutes on any motion today, and frequently for very much less. A number of us feel strongly about some of the constitutional practices introduced by the Bill.
I appeal to the Leader of the House to reconsider his view. The timetable with which he is concerned can be met if hon. Members go on being as co-operative as they have been today. I should like to help him to obtain a reasonable discussion of these matters at a proper hour rather than as late as this. Those who feel as I do are willing to pursue these matters at this hour if that is necessary, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall be happy to sit tomorrow to consider these proposals moderately, shortly and concisely.
On that understanding, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his view in order that hon. Members, including his own supporters, whom I am trying to help—Heaven knows why—may discuss these matters at a more appropriate time. We still have all tomorrow. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there are no more matters of major principle and the right hon. Gentleman will be able to achieve that he wants tomorrow without keeping the Committee very late tonight.

Mr. Peyton: I said when I moved the motion that it was not my intention unduly to delay the Committee. As hon. Members below the Gangway are now prepared in courtesy to give me the opportunity to do so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

EXCLUSION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in page 3, leave out lines 20 to 22.

The Deputy Chairman: With this we are taking the following amendments: No. 70, in page 3, line 22, at end add
'unless such proceedings have been commenced within thirty days of the date on which the referendum is held'.
No. 71, in page 3, line 22, at end add
'unless such proceedings were commenced within a period of thirty days commencing with the date of the certificate of the counting officer under section 2(3) of this Act'.
No. 72, in page 3, line 22, at end add
'unless such proceedings shall have been commenced within 28 days of the result of the referendum being certified by the Counting Officer'.

Mr. Fowler: The purpose of the amendment is to restrict the exclusion of legal proceedings effected by the clause. Having listened carefully to the Second Reading debate, we decided to accede to what was the clear wish of the Committee to remove paragraph (b).
The end result is that we have decided that it is sufficient to confine the exclusion of legal proceedings to the certification of the result by the accounting officer, which is effected by paragraph (a). In any event, proceedings which would have been excluded by paragraph (b) would have been of little effect, since, whatever their outcome, they could not have had any consequence on the referendum as a whole.

Sir Michael Havers: During the course of the Second Reading debate it was clearly expressed by my right hon. Friend and myself that paragraph (b) achieved nothing, and that it went much too far. I am delighted that the Government have taken this view.
When I was looking at the list of amendments and saw the Lord President's name against the amendment, I thought that this was another mistake, because I had understood that the Labour Party had made a mistake in an early-day motion earlier this week and I thought that this was a repetition.
I must tell my hon. Friends that this amendment should be supported. A conversion, however late, is always welcome.

The Deputy Chairman: The Question is—

Mr. Emery: rose—

The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) is showing signs of tiredness. He should have been on his feet more quickly.

Mr. Emery: I welcome this amendment from the Government. It illustrates—as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out earlier—the completely nonsensical position into which the Government have got themselves when considering the whole of the referendum issue.
That the Government at any time considered that the validity of anything done or purported to be done under this measure or under any order made under this measure could not be referred to the courts shows a degree of dominance and a lack of respect of the law which—thank goodness—we in the Opposition have been able to remedy by means of the Second Reading debate and some pressure behind the scenes.
It should and must be pointed out that the Government initially were quite happy to go forward with the Bill as published. Only because of pressure from the Opposition have they brought in this amendment. I find it discouraging that the Government should have been in the position they were in at the start.
That fact needs to be brought home quite clearly.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

EXPENSES

The Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That the clause—

Mr. Emery: rose—

The Deputy Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) is not exhausting himself.

Mr. Emery: I hope, Sir Myer, that you will have given notice to your replacement, at whatever time he takes over—

The Deputy Chairman: He will have fortified himself.

Mr. Emery: I hope so, because I shall be here at that time, too.
I should like to know how the administrative expenses incurred by a Minister will be dealt with. Will these expenses be published? How will the House be able to refer to this expenditure and at what time immediately after the referendum will the House be able to have these details?

Mr. Edward Short: Perhaps I can answer those questions and reply to a point that the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) made earlier. All expenditure connected with the referendum was authorised by the House when it approved the Money Resolution after Second Reading. This includes the cost of the popular version of the White Paper and the two umbrella organisations' pamphlets. If necessary, Supplementary Estimates will be presented in the usual way, and meanwhile the Civil Contingencies Fund is being used.

Mr. Emery: The figures in the preamble of the Bill of the estimated financial cost of £9 million were prepared some time ago. Since then there has been a wage award in the printing industry, and since a large proportion of the costs relate to printing I should like to know whether that figure still stands or whether it will be exceeded. If the latter is to be the case I urge the Leader of the House to take all possible steps to hold to the figure of £9 million and not have to provide a supplementary estimate.

Mr. Short: We shall try to hold the costs as much as we can, but some costs cannot be held. This exercise has not been carried out before. The cost has now risen to between £9 million and £10 million, which is rather more than the original estimate.

Mr. David Steel: May I repeat the question I put earlier, to which I did not get an answer? What is the cost of the Earls Court exercise?

Mr. Short: The central count will cost in the region of £1 million.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill, put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

>New Clause 6

ADJOURNMENT OF PARLIAMENT

'Without prejudice to any statutory or other power of the Crown under the Meeting of Parliament Act 1799 as amended by the Meeting of Parliament Act 1870 and without prejudice to the power of either House of Parliament to terminate its adjournment, both Houses of Parliament shall stand adjourned for a period of 21 days immediately prior to the date appointed for the holding of the referendum. During the aforesaid period of 21 days no broadcasting authority or corporation shall broadcast any party political broadcast on behalf of any political party.'—[Mr. David Steel.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Deputy Chairman: With it we shall also discuss new Clause 3, "Adjournment of Parliament".

Mr. Steel: The clause was tabled some time ago, and the last sentence of it deals with party political broadcasts. My proposal on this point has been met by the agreement between the parties that there should not be such broadcasts during the referendum campaign, and, therefore, I do not need to refer further to that point.
The clause was tabled before we knew the date proposed by the Leader of the House for the referendum. Whether we press the clause or not will depend on what the right hon. Gentleman says about his plans for the Whitsun Recess. We are conducting the referendum as much as possible like a General Election. We would never dream of running a General Election campaign and sittings of the House simultaneously. If we are to have a referendum we had better do the thing properly, with campaigns on both sides of the argument, holding meetings and trying to interest people in the subject. It is impossible for hon. Members to do that and attend to their business in the House at the same time. For that reason I propose that the House should stand adjourned for three weeks before the referendum date.
If we are to stick to 5th June this would in the normal course of events fall during the Whitsun Recess and, therefore, I do not press my argument too strongly. But the Leader of the House should tell us his plans if the polling date is to be

5th June. When will the House rise? If we know that, we shall know the sort of campaigning period we shall have and whether it will interfere with the business of the House.

Mr. Edward Short: Assuming that polling day is 5th June, new Clause 3 would wish Parliament to rise on 21st May and to reassemble the day after the result of the referendum is announced. New Clause 6 would have Parliament rising on 15th May. I have already told the House that if polling day is 5th June —and provided that we can get the Bill through the House this week it will be 5th June—I shall propose that the House goes into the Whitsun Recess on 23rd May and reassembles on 9th June. That is very nearly as long as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) proposes in his new clause.
I appreciate that the Liberal clause is designed to allow the same campaigning period as is allowed for General Elections, but the case is not the same. Campaigning for an election does not properly begin until Dissolution, but campaigning for the referendum is already in full swing. I know that many hon. Members wish to play a full part in the referendum campaign, and especially in its closing stages. I think that my proposal will allow them to do so. In normal circumstances we would not have had two weeks at Whitsuntide, but we shall have two weeks with the referendum on 5th June. We have a very full parliamentary programme in front of us and none of us wishes to rise too late for the Summer Recess.
I think that my proposal draws the right balance. It would in any case be wrong to provide for the length of recesses in legislation. Hon Members will appreciate the reasons for that. That is something which the House should always decide in the usual way nearer the time, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. It would be open to hon. Members to propose different arrangements nearer the time if we proceeded in the normal way. They would be able to do so by means of the Adjournment debate if they so wished.
The new clauses would deprive back benchers of a valued debate. The proposal of the hon. Member for Eastbourne


would have the further disadvantage of preventing the recall of Parliament in an emergency. We would be stuck with it whatever happened and we would not be able to recall the House.
I do not think that I need say anything about broadcasting. That has now been agreed to the satisfaction, I think, of the two campaigning organisations. I understand that the arrangements for the broadcasts will be announced in the near future. Once again, I do not think it would be right to put those arrangements into legislation. Our normal arrangements for settling such matters as party political broadcasting have provided a fair balance between the parties over many years. I do not think it would be in the interests of any party, least of all the smaller parties, to set a precedent for Government legislation on party political broadcasting.
In view of the very narrow gap that divides us on this issue I hope that the two hon. Members will feel able to withdraw their clauses.

Mr. Gow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. In view of what he has said I do not propose to press my clause. However, I take this opportunity to ask him a question. Under his proposed timetable the House would resume after the recess on Monday 9th June. The Lord President was not in the Chamber earlier when some of my hon. Friends were asking the Minister of State whether the Prime Minister would come to the House on 9th June to announce the result of the referendum to the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman please comment on the questions which were put to his hon. Friend the Minister of State?

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Short: This rather ties up with the method of counting and announcing the vote. I said earlier that the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) would leave the Government free to count votes by counties or centrally. Certainly the Government are now obliged to announce the result by counties. We will still be free to count nationally, and I pointed out that we had got to the stage in our plans when the balance of administrative advantage was certainly in favour of the central count.
I will represent to the Prime Minister what the hon. Member has said. If the result of the vote is known to 500 to 600 counters at seven o'clock on Sunday evening it will be known to everyone in the country very quickly. It could not, with the best will in the world, be kept secret until 3.30 p.m. the next day. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will wish to make a statement on the referendum result but the result would be known before then. I will consider this with the Prime Minister and let the House know the result.

Mr. Michael Marshall: As one of the sponsors of new Clause 3 I am satisfied, in general, that the Lord President has in some sense met our intentions. It is only fair to say that to some extent the dates have conveniently fallen in such a way that various viewpoints are being met. The Government are asking hon. Members to go out and campaign in something that many of us feel is largely for the Government's convenience. It is reasonable, therefore, to ask that we should not go through the whole of the Whitsun Recess without a holiday of some sort. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider my suggestion that the House should return on about 11th June.

Mr. Emery: May I ask the Lord President for an assurance that he will do what he can, through the usual channels, to ensure that the business for the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday preceding the Whitsun Recess is as non-controversial as possible? This will enable those hon. Members who have a strong desire to campaign in their constituencies to do so without missing important business here. This is particularly important for those Members who have large county areas to cover rather than city constituencies, where one or two meetings might suffice.

Mr. Edward Short: Friday's business will certainly be highly non-controversial. I cannot give an undertaking about the Wednesday and Thursday but I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says and see what can be done.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am anxious that we should make the best of this bad job. I have a constituency covering 300 square miles and containing 30 to 34 villages. I feel that nine days


will not be sufficient for the kind of campaigning I want to do. We pro-Marketeers feel strongly that the main enemy is apathy rather than the anti-Marketeers. The anti-Marketeers may well feel that they are not putting their case across well enough. Either way, a determined effort has to be made to persuade people. I am worried that many people will still not know the facts after nine days of campaigning.
There is an added feature. It is becoming clear that there is some movement in the country—all hon. Members have received some document from some group —to encourage people to abstain. The stronger that movement grows, the more important it is for us to get round to the villages and other parts of the larger constituencies and explain not only the merits or demerits of the Common Market issues but how vital it is for people not to find spurious excuses for abstaining.
That will make campaigning more onerous. I appreciate what the Lord President said about legislation not being the best way to achieve that, and I would be happy if he gave an undertaking that the date could be shifted so that we rise two days earlier. I appreciate that valuable days will be lost for Adjournment debates, but there is no subject more important to the British nation which any hon. Member could raise than the future of the country in or out of the Common Market.
I feel that the argument in the House is not nearly so strong as the all-important matter of taking the argument to the people of the country. I urge the Lord President to consider the feelings of hon. Members on both sides with large constituencies, and to make an offer to extend the time by a day or two more than the nine days, even if we do not take any time off over Whitsun.

Mr. David Steel: I do not wish to prolong the proceedings at this late hour. I admire the capacity of the Lord President for sounding generous while giving nothing away. All he has announced is the date of the Whitsun Recess. Most of us had pencilled in our diaries the recess which we would normally have had after having only one week at Easter. Nothing has been given away. It is unfortunate that we shall not have for the referendum

campaign the amount of time normal for a General Election campaign.
It is already the case that meetings on both sides are under way, but as we get closer to the date of the referendum those meetings will become more regular, so I emphasise that, while I shall seek to withdraw my new clause, the Lord President should take seriously that in the week before the recess there will be a responsibility to make sure as far as possible, through the usual channels, that the business will be such as to allow hon. Members in all parties to get out and speak all over the country. He has given an assurance to do his best to see that that is done, and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Motion and clause, by leave withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman: The next debate will be on new Clauses 11, 12, 13 and 21.

Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Sir Myer. There is new Clause 9,
Minimum requirements for turnout and size of majority 
'If, following the counting of the votes, it appears to the Secretary of State that

(a) less than half of those legally qualified to vote have actually done so, or
(b) in the event of a majority of persons voting "No" but the number making up that majority being less than two-thirds of those actually voting, and registering a valid vote,

the Secretary of State shall declare that the referendum is null and void'.
This has been selected—and new Clause 15 is to be discussed with it—but has not been called.

The Deputy Chairman: It was intimated that those new clauses would not be moved.

Mr. Emery: I am sorry, Sir Myer, but that was incorrect.

The Deputy Chairman: The non. Member's name is not down on new Clause 9.

Mr. Emery: An hon. Member's name does not have to appear.

The Deputy Chairman: We were definitely informed that new Clause 9 would not be moved.

Mr. Emery: Further to the point of order, Sir Myer. I am sorry. I seldom


want to question the rulings of the Chair, but no hon. Member can know what messages may be given to the Chair and it is in order for any Member to move a new Clause whether his or her name is on the clause or not. As this intimation was not given to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) is not present to move the clause, I wish to do so. I see that the selection list indicates that new Clause 9 is selected if it is desired to move it, and I would ask you to reconsider your ruling because it would accord with normal practice.

The Deputy Chairman: It is not a question of whether any hon. Member can move a new clause. I think it is grossly unfair that any hon. Member should take advantage of the fact when I give the assurance solemnly from the Chair that we were advised that this new clause would not be moved. However, if the hon. Member wishes to move it, he is entitled to do so.

[Mr. W. T. WILLIAMS in the Chair]

Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I should like immediately to apologise, because no discourtesy to the Chair is meant. I had no knowledge that it had been indicated that new Clause 9 and new Clause 15, "Validity of the total vote", would not be moved. I consider them to be of very considerable importance. They go to the whole sense of the referendum. The Committee may recall that on two occasions I have suggested that the Government will be in considerable difficulty if there is a turnout at the level—[Interruption.]

The Temporary Chairman: Order. While the hon. Member is on his feet, I hope the Committee will be kind enough to give attention to his speech.

Mr. Emery: There will be considerable difficulty if the turnout is at the level of many county council elections—about 48 per cent. It is my judgment that those who are against our participation in Europe are likely to poll nearly all their strength. Therefore, a situation could well arise in which with 48 per cent. voting, 24½ per cent.—less than a quarter of the electorate—voted for coming out of the Common Market, 23½ per cent.
voted for staying in, but 52 per cent. of the electorate had not spoken. Perhaps, indeed, the latter category had considered that the judgment of the House of Commons, when 226 Members voted in support of the Government's White Paper which recommended staying in, was enough, and that Parliament having spoken, that was all that really mattered in our democracy.
I am particularly concerned about the position as announced by the Prime Minister. As I understand it, the Prime Minister made it clear that as long as there is one vote in favour of coming out, and however small the turnout, that is the way his Government will interpret the referendum. It would be absolute nonsense if a very large number of hon. Members, particularly Labour Members —it would not apply in relation to Conservative Members but would for about 150 Socialists—were urged to vote against their wishes and the way that they have previously voted in Parliament, on such a remarkably small majority of votes or on such a remarkably small turnout.
In my judgment that is not democracy. It is the people saying "We are fed up to the teeth with this issue. It has been going on for too long. Parliament has made the decision. We believe that Parliament ought to decide and ought not to be coming back with a referendum".
A low turnout will be a condemnation of the referendum more than anything else, and the process of the referendum, and will not necessarily be indicative of the wishes of the population.
The two new clauses go some way towards getting the Government out of their difficulty. I believe that new Clause 15 contains the greater degree of sense. I am sorry that that was not selected for a Division.
1.15 a.m.
New Clause 15 says:
The vote on the referendum shall be declared null and void—

(1) if there is an overall vote of less than 60 per cent. of those eligible to vote, and
(2) if there is not a two-thirds overall majority voting one way or the other"

If the Government find themselves in the unfortunate position which I have suggested, new Clause 15 will enable them to get out of that difficulty.
I cannot believe that even the most ardent anti-Common Marketeer would find it satisfactory if the Government introduced legislation to bring the United Kingdom out of the Common Market on the verdict of 26 per cent. of the electorate if under 50 per cent. of the electorate voted. That is not democracy, which the Government claim that the referendum is all about. That does not reflect the voice of the British people.
Both new clauses are worthy of consideration. They should be seriously taken on board by the Government. I urge the Minister to think about them.
Perhaps the anti-Common Marketeers will be happy at a result which is not representative of the whole nation. However, I do not believe that the Government would be happy with that situation. If so, why will they not accept either new Clause 9 or new Clause 15?

The Temporary Chairman: I am in some difficulty about this because of the ruling of my predecessor. However, I have taken the opportunity of reading "Erskine May". The hon. Member is wholly out of order. The ruling contained in "Erskine May" at page 525 is:
A Member is not permitted to move a clause of which another Member has given notice.
The hon. Member is wholly out of order. I should be grateful if he would assist the Committee by drawing his remarks to a close.

Mr. Emery: I thank you, Mr. Williams, for that ruling. However, may I ask you to speak to the Speaker's Panel, since this situation occurred earlier when the ex-Under-Secretary of State for Scotland moved an amendment which did not bear his name. The last ruling allowed him to move the amendment.
In view of the fact that many people support the views expressed in these clauses, will the Minister reply to my question? The country should have a reply on this matter.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. As the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) was out of order, the Minister would be out of order in attempting to reply to the debate.

Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Williams. I might be able to claim that this is an entirely new precedent. I do not wish to go into the argument, because we might be involved in a slightly legal battle. But, as I have drawn my remarks to a close and as the previous occupant of the Chair allowed me to move the new clause—whether he ought or ought not to have done so is academic—the new clause has now been moved. Therefore, surely it is before the Committee.

The Temporary Chairman: To err is human, but "Erskine May" is divine.

Mr. Emery: I hope not.

The Temporary Chairman: The established rule is that—

Mr. Emery: May I know the reference?

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that we shall not have a long argument about it. The ruling is set out at page 525, the first paragraph. I find it a little embarrassing, since the ruling was not given by me and I do not want to query another Chairman of the Committee, but the position is quite clear. Indeed, it is mandatory. I will read it again:
A Member is not permitted to move a clause of which another Member has given notice.
The position is that another Member—the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham)—had given notice on this point. The hon. Member for Honiton quickly moved in and there was insufficient notice for this to have been taken notice of. The hon. Gentleman, under that misapprehension, was allowed to talk perhaps too long. I hope that he will now have regard to the respect which has been shown to him and not talk very much longer.

Mr. Emery: May I ask one question about your ruling, Mr. Williams? I thank you for the reference, which I have looked at quickly. Does not this refer to new clauses on Report, whereas we are in Committee? That refers to Report stage of a Bill in the Commons, but we are in Committee. It seemed to me that that was following on. I am asking for information. I am not trying to say that what I am suggesting is absolute.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: Perhaps the Minister of State will give his reply while this point is being looked up.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman gives me a baptism of fire. The only other relevant ruling in "Erskine May" which quickly, with the help of the Clerk, I have been able to discover is on page 517. The principle appears to be the same. The procedure is set out in the second paragraph. The provision there is,
The Member in whose name it stands
is called upon to speak. By analogy one would think that applied.

Mr. Emery: Does not the sentence read,
The Member in whose name it stands, on being called by the chairman, 'brings up' the clause"?
I merely suggest that the position here is not quite the same as in the situation on page 525 where it specifically says that it is the Member whose name appears on the clause.
I immediately bow to your ruling, Mr. Williams, but I wonder whether you would be good enough to look into the matter, because I am sure that as we have now run into difficulties the Chair would want to ensure that this matter was able to be discussed on Report, when I shall ensure that my name is added to the clause and is not withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman: That is something to which the Committee will look forward with great pleasure.
I have given my ruling, and if the first ruling that I have given proves to be wrong, not even that will be a precedent. I have given my ruling, and I think that we should get on. The matter will be looked at and some comment will be made by someone better qualified than myself.

Mr. Michael Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Williams. I have been here for a long time and I was particularly anxious to speak on this clause. If, after further study, you find that your ruling is not as firm as it might be, would it be possible to provide time to take this matter up again tomorrow before we take the Report stage?

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that we are not going to spend a lot of

time on this. The matter can be argued on Report and it will be looked at. It is not for me to determine what will be decided and debated on Report, but these comments will be taken note of and the matter dealt with.

New Clause 11

ENTITLEMENT TO CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY EXPENDITURE

'No individual, group of individuals or organisations except those named in Clause 3 shall incur expenditure after 1st May 1975 in excess of £50 on campaign activities except with the authorisation of one of the organisations so named'.—[Mr. Ovenden.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ovenden: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Temporary Chairman: With this we are to take the following new clauses:
No. 12—"Limit of referendum campaign expenditure"—
'The total expenditure incurred after 1st May 1975, by, or upon the authority of, either the National Referendum Campaign or the Britain in Europe Organisation shall not exceed £500,000'.
No. 13—"Penalty for unauthorised expenditure on referendum campaign "—
'The penalty for unauthorised expenditure by individuals, groups of individuals or organisations other than the National Referendum Campaign and the Britain in Europe organisation shall be a fine of £200 or ten times the expenditure involved, whichever is the greater.
The penalty for expenditure greater than that permitted in this Bill by the organisations named in Clause 3 shall be a fine of £10,000 or ten times the excess expenditure involved whichever is the greater.'
No. 21—"Equal use of parliamentary moneys "—
'No moneys provided by Parliament under this Act or any other Act shall be used unequally to promote the views of either persons who wish electors to vote "Yes" or "No" in the referendum'.

Mr. Ovenden: It is not my intention to detain the Committee for long at this hour of the night. It was nearly my good fortune to start my brief remarks 15 minutes ago, but as that did not happen I shall be even briefer than I should otherwise have been.
The object of the clause is clear. It is an attempt, clumsy though it may be, to restrict expenditure on the campaign. It has been an underlying theme of the


debate that we should try to run the referendum campaign in much the same way as a General Election, and it is a principle of our General Elections and local government elections that there is control over expenditure. We have accepted that the right to spend unlimited sums of money confers an advantage on the side that has the power to do that. If we do not accept that, there is no point in having a limit on expenditure in parliamentary elections.
There will be no problems in this campaign if access to funds is equally open to both sides, but it is pretty clear that the "poor" European Movement has access to considerably more money than the anti-Marketeers have. We have accepted this, and we accepted it when we proposed that Government money should be donated to the two sides. That principle is hardly now in dispute.
If we accept that there should be no limit to the expenditure that can be incurred in this campaign, we are saying that access to funds should determine the success of a particular side in it. The grants do not overcome the objection. Although they make money available to one side which may not have funds of its own, that does not overcome the imbalance in the funds that are available to the two sides. There is still authority for one side to raise a considerable amount of money to spend in addition to the grant from the Government.
It was suggested by one Conservative Member who has long since left the Chamber that the Bill takes care of that as there are provisions to limit expenditure. I have read the Bill but I cannot find any such provision. The only suggestion here is that there should be a return of expenditure. That does not imply any limit on expenditure. It merely suggests that when the money has been raised and vast sums have been expended on producing the result which one side or the other wants the figures should be published.
It has been suggested—and I think that the Lord President of the Council took this view—that that may act as a restraint upon the two sides over their expenditure. It is said that they would not want to be seen after the campaign to have spent a vast sum of money. I suggest that that is a fallacious argument. If the European

Movement can buy the result it wants through a mass advertising campaign it will not be embarrassed when it must show how much it spent. The leaders of the campaign will gloat over what they have achieved.
1.30 a.m.
If we are to restrict expenditure, we must say who is entitled to incur expenditure. I know that this is difficult. We must single out certain organisations which are permitted to spend money and at the same time say that other organisations are not permitted to spend money. But by the grants we have conferred some status on the two organisations. I see no reason why we should not confer the status of being allowed to incur expenditure on those organisations with the proviso that they would be allowed to authorise expenditure by other bodies. It would be useless to impose expenditure limits on the two main organisations without seeking to impose a bar on spending by other organisations because the money would merely be spent through the back door and the object of the new clauses would be lost.
I tabled an amendment which has not been called to make returns of expenditure compulsory whether or not the money was accepted from Government funds. I understand that returns will be required only if the organisation accepts money from Government funds. I should have liked the amendment to be called because the new clauses hinge on that. It is difficult to impose the limits I propose without having a provision in the Bill which makes returns of expenditure compulsory.
I realise that what we propose may create further imperfections. The vital issue is whether we should allow one side or the other to buy the result it wants with a mass propaganda campaign which could verge almost on a brain-washing campaign towards the end of it. We should consider whether we should permit that principle. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that on Report he will consider this point and will put forward a proposal for a limit. We are not in a position to hold a democratic election without limits on expenditure. It is naive to imagine that restraint will be exercised by the two sides without legal limits being imposed.

Mr. Michael Marshall: The new clause raises considerable problems. The limit of £50 which is proposed is impractical. Apart from the impracticality of this arbitrary figure, I find it repugnant in terms of the restriction on democratic expression of view implied in it.
The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) talked about the possibility of one side buying the result it wants. He must appreciate that there are others outside the umbrella organisations who wish to have their say. I dare say that he has received the representation of the Don't Know Campaign, which wishes members of the public to go through a number of questions and so say whether they have read the Treaty of Rome, to confirm that they have not studied the tons of supplementary paper work on the subject and to confirm that they are not experts on European political, social, trade and economic affairs. Such matters will strike a chord with a number of people.
The Don't Know Campaign asks people to say that they
do, through taxes, pay the British Government and Parliament to make decisions of national importance".
and, therefore, that they believe that
Government can call on learned advice and research regardless of expense";
that
Government officials and civil servants have the time and facilities to sift out the facts";
that
the British Parliament should maintain its sovereignty";
that
the elected representatives of the British people in Parliament should keep the responsibility for this decision".
We begin to see some of the strength of feeling with which many people regard the referendum as something in which they do not necessarily wish to take part. Indeed, the advice further on in this paper on how to spoil votes
and pass the buck—back where it belongs
suggests that there is a powerful movement in the country—an organisation which, so far as I can judge, is perfectly reputable—which will undoubtedly wish to exceed the expenditure of £50 which the hon. Gentleman proposes.
Therefore, while this expression of view as I have outlined it clearly suggests that there are those who do not think that the

referendum campaign should be simply a battle between the two sides as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, the whole of this exercise comes back to the futility of this kind of referendum campaign. In that case, restrictions such as are suggested by the hon. Gentleman are immaterial to the exercise, and on democratic grounds, I urge him to think again. I shall find no difficulty in opposing the clause.

Mr. Ken Weetch: Since my name is down to this and the two following proposed clauses, I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden).
This referendum and the debate on it will be crucially affected by the resources which each side has available. The communications industry which each side has to use is enormously expensive. Let us look the facts straight in the face. We have a tradition in Britain that in General Elections, as far as we possibly can, we ensure that the result is not in any way affected by the length of the purse that any of the political parties possess. We have by no means solved this problem, but at least we hold to the principle, and that is very important.
Clause 3 of the Bill stipulates that each side shall receive an equivalent amount of money, namely £125,000, but this apparent equality in financial resources backing the respective campaigns is only a semblance of equality and is really a complete fiction. Nobody who has any knowledge of campaigning on this issue over any period of time can doubt the fact that Britain in Europe can raise and spend quite vast amounts of money. Now that the amendments to Clause 3 have been repulsed—amendments which would have increased the amounts of money from public sources—this disparity is starker than ever. The disparity is quite clear for all of us to see. When the documents fall on the mat, they will fall two to one for remaining in Europe before anything else starts. It is also the case that the Press in this country speaks in almost nauseating unison about the issue. Also the CBI and the multinational companies are mobilising and channelling money behind the scenes.
It has been expressed as a principle that we should conform as far as we possibly can to the normal practices of a General Election. If we really mean this, there must be limits on expenditure, and


a number of things loom large in what we have to do. First, it must be stipulated that the money spent must be authorised by the umbrella organisations named in this campaign. Secondly, there must be prescribed limits on expenditure. Thirdly, as there can be no disqualification of candidature, there must be penalties for overstepping the mark.
Paragraph 35 of the White Paper says that there is concern in the Government's mind about imbalance. Paragraph 36 says:
The Government believe however that it is a matter of legitimate public interest to know how much money has been spent on the campaign by major organisations and interests and the sources of their income. Although this can be known only after the event"—
after the event it will be too late, because the horse will have bolted—
it could exercise a restraining influence.
How much more of a restraining influence could be exerted if there were a firm framework, as outlined in the new clauses!
It is accepted that in such an exercise it will be difficult to account for every penny piece, but in the Bill there is no limit on expenditure. That is unfair and unjust in principle. The new clauses seek to ensure limits on total expenditure by each organisation of £500,000. New Clause 13, sets the penalties for infringement.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will carefully consider the three clauses, because they add up to fair and just treatment of all concerned, and hinge on an important point of principle in the argument.

Mr. Emery: I urge the Minister not to give way on the clauses. Anyone wishing to spend more than they would permit has only to start another organisation with another name. It makes the House look absurd if it enacts legislation that can be easily got round, not in a devious way but in a way as simple as that which I have outlined.
As we could not achieve anything by the clauses, I urge the Minister to reject his hon. Friends' blandishments.

Mr. English: I wish to address myself to new Clause 21, in my name, which, although it is starred, was down in the

form of an amendment until yesterday, when I was advised that it should be a new clause.
The object is to deal with the same problem as I mentioned in a previous debate, that of the bias that the Government are endeavouring to bring into the referendum because of their fear about the result. I am referring to the 16 frightened little men who form the majority of the Cabinet, who have not recovered from finding that the majority of their party and of the Government underneath them disagree with them. The fact that they have all the resources of every major company in the country on their side—even with plans at the moment, I understand, for those major companies to tell their employees that they might be in a bad situation if Britain came out of Europe—the fact that they have nearly every newspaper and journal of opinion on their side—all this is not enough for the Government, and they must even use taxpayers' money in a biased way.
1.45 a.m.
The only reason for the Government's wishing to import this bias is fear. They would not wish to have a biased referendum if they were not frightened. Obviously, if they could win their case on an unbiased referendum, it would be a far better case and a much better victory. Only because of fear are they forced to bias it in this way. One can see it as one goes through the differences between the Prime Minister's statement on the referendum, the White Paper on the referendum and now this Bill, and then the sudden accession of Service men's votes at the behest of the Minister of State for Defence. At each stage a little more bias in one direction creeps in.
Now we have civil servants being paid to give biased information, and £1 million is to be spent on a "pop" version of the White Paper. The Government blandly say "We must be allowed to present our case.". In choosing the example of the "Yes" or "No" process in Australia, they have forgotten that in Australia the Government present one of the cases but not their own case in addition. Here, the Government's case is being put twice, as has already been said, and the sole reason is fear.
If the Government were not so frightened of the decision of the electorate, they would want an unbiased referendum. They would want to be able to say "This was an unbiased referendum. We have won it because our case was so good.". But, because they are so frightened about the strength of their case, they wish to bias it in this way.
It has never been the tradition since the eighteenth century that Government money was used for the purpose of influencing voters in a certain way. In the eighteenth century, voters were paid by the Treasury, and Members—not just Ministers but many Members—were paid by the Treasury to vote in a certain way on particular occasions. But that has not been so since.
Can one imagine what the situation would be if we had this practice at the next General Election, with £1 million worth of documents distributed so that every household had a multi-coloured 16-page version of the Labour Party manifesto? It is a lovely thought.

Mr. William Price: It is an appealing thought, too. But there is one problem. By tradition, and in practice, the Government information service closes down during General Elections.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend makes the point precisely. It closes down. At no point in the debate so far has there been so clear and explicit a statement showing the difference between the normal practice and this practice, and showing the gulf between the normal practice and the bias which the Government are introducing because of their fear.
At one time, the Government honestly believed that they would at least carry the majority of their own party with them in the House of Commons. The pro-Marketeers in the Government party intended to put down a list of the names of Labour Members who supported them, but they did not do so because it turned out to be smaller than they had thought.

Mr. Emery: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great enthusiasm. Could not his purpose be achieved by his putting

down a motion of censure of his Government, so that we could get rid of them?

Mr. English: There are other ways. In a political party one does not have to move a motion of censure on the Government in the House of Commons, because one can do the same thing in the political party and change the Government without changing its political nature. However, I shall not stray into that argument, for it is out of order. I should be out of order if I strayed into discussing the intricate constitutional structure of the Labour Party.
The issue is simple. There are two courses before this country: to stay in the Common Market or to come out. But there is a choice as to how that can be done: it can be done fairly or unfairly. Whichever side does it unfairly will reap the harvest in terms of the opinion of the electorate, eventually if not immediately.
As several hon. Members have pointed out, having a referendum at all creates a precedent. What is the comparison? Britain used to be the envy of the world for its democratic traditions. Now every Swiss and every Australian and every Californian, people who are used to having referenda, can say "At least we conduct them better than they do in Britain. We do not bias them in favour of the Government".
We used to criticise the French for using the media of communication to give only the Government side of a case. The Government here, these 16 frightened little men, can no longer criticise the French. They have adopted the French principle rather than the principles of Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Australia, or the American States. They have deliberately chosen the least moral examples in the world as examples of how to conduct a referendum, and they will go down in history as having chosen not genuine unbiased democracy but, out of their own fright, the worst examples they could find.

Mr. Goodhart: The Parliamentary Secretary rather put his foot in it when he intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).

Mr. William Price: I stated a fact that I thought every hon. Member knew anyway. If that constitutes putting my foot in it, so be it.

Mr. Goodhart: Factually right no doubt, but certain people see certain similarities between a referendum campaign and a General Election. I appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West a bit more when he was delivering it on an amendment to Clause 3 than on this new clause.
The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) and his hon. Friends rather underestimate the intelligence of the electorate when they allege that the referendum could be bought by a Press advertising campaign. But there is a substantial difference between the limitations that can be imposed on expenditure in a referendum campaign and the sort of expenditure controls that we have at normal General Elections.
All the controls about a General Election relate to the election of a candidate, but even at a General Election there is no control over expenditure in favour of a political idea. Vast sums are spent at a General Election by trades unions on pamphlets and on the production of special editions of newspapers supporting the idea of the return of the Labour Party. Substantial sums are spent during a General Election campaign by supporters of the Conservative Party on the general idea of returning a Conservative Government, not in favour of returning any specific candidate.
The difference between a General Election and a referendum campaign is that there is no candidate in the latter. It is, therefore, impossible, in our system, to limit the expenditure of money. In a free democracy it is impossible to limit an individual's right to say anything or publish anything in support of an idea.
If we were to pass these new clauses —I am sure we shall not—instead of extending the right of free speech and democracy—this great democratic engine, as the Prime Minister described the referendum—we should be imposing a vast and entirely new restriction on free speech—a restriction that hitherto has never been known in this country. I therefore hope that we shall reject the new clauses.

Mr. Buchan: I shall be extremely brief. I want to make one or two things clear. We on the Government side—all of us, including those who are critical of the Government—welcome the referendum.

We welcome the fulfilment of the pledge that the Labour Party made in respect of a referendum and the new expansion of freedom and democracy entailed in it. [Interruption.]If the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) would grow in mental stature to match his physical stature he would be helped.
Secondly, we welcome the freedom that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have given members of the Government to participate in the debate. Despite the mild incident last week, by and large this was a welcome freedom and extension of democracy. Therefore, the criticisms that we are making are not ones that ignore valid points; our criticism is that there is a grave danger of this referendum losing its own validity, because what has been emerging during the last few weeks has been an enormous bias.
How do we help the Cabinet and Government to fulfil the original intention of having a fair and equal referendum? It is this that has caused many of us to concentrate our questions on the three documents. This is a strange situation. When there are two sides to an argument nothing could be simpler; it is a case of "Yes" or "No". Surely there is a case for only two documents —"Yes" and "No"; the Government's case and the case of those who oppose the Government. That makes sense. To have three documents only weights the balance against those who wish to say "No". That is a simple piece of bias.
We have brought out during the evening other examples of bias in terms of the control of the media and the distortion of the campaign. We have spelt them out in detail. That is the background of the three new clauses.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) is no longer here, thank goodness. He is quite wrong in saying that the clauses do not do the job that hon. Members hoped they would do. They do. Taken in conjunction, new Clauses 11 and 12 bring about the equal expenditure of money. None of us is sure how easy it will be to put this into practice. All of us would prefer a recognition by the Government of the injustice of the case.
I have intervened now not to repeat the fairly harsh statement I made a few hours ago but to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary. I know how difficult


it is to be a Parliamentary Secretary, holding the baby in a situation in which there is a lot of feeling. It is difficult for him to say "Yes, I have changed the Government's mind." All we are asking, therefore, is that we do not get a flat refusal tonight, that the Minister will promise to report back to the Leader of the House and convey to him the strength of feeling which exists that an injustice is being done and will continue if the Bill goes through in its present form. Will he ensure that the Leader of the House takes on board the points we are making, that there must be some limit on the extravagant, ostentatious and undemocratic expenditure which is taking place? We want an assurance that he will devise between now and Report some method of dealing with it even to the extent of bringing in orders in a week or two? If we get those assurances I shall advise my hon. Friends not to divide the Committee.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. William Price: My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has put the case very fairly. Ministers gave very careful consideration to the possibility of limiting the amount of expenditure which might be incurred by the authorised campaigning organisations, but they came to the view, and many of my hon. Friends below the Gangway will say it is the wrong view, that it was neither right nor practical to do so.
I can give my hon. Friend this assurance, and I hope that it will satisfy hon. Members, that I will certainly report what has happened to the Lord President and my hon. Friends can be sure that the views expressed will be brought to the attention of the campaigning organizations.

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Price: I hope my hon. Friend will permit me to finish. He asked me to draw the attention of the Lord President to the strength of feeling which exists over the fact that there is no limitation in the Bill. We are trying to make those who give the money and those who spend it accountable. Those who provide the donations should be prepared to be identified, and the way in which the

money is spent should be known to the public. Many hon. Members, I know, regard that as unsatisfactory. I know that for some of my hon. Friends the flaw in that argument is that steps will be taken too late. I have been asked whether I will draw these matters to the Lord President's attention. I give the assurance that I shall do so.

Mr. Buchan: I wish to pursue certain particular aspects. First, we want a measure brought forward on Report to deal with this problem. If not, we want consideration given to the bringing of orders in a week or two. May I remind my hon. Friend of these two points? Will the Lord President be prepared to meet a broadly-based deputation from these benches to discuss the matter?

Mr. Price: My hon. Friend has been a member of this Government at a more senior level than I have attained. He was kind enough to say that he knew perfectly well that I could not at my rather humble level give that assurance. I am saying in response to what I understood my hon. Friend to be asking that I will ensure that the Lord President knows what has been happening in the debate. I cannot commit him or the Government at this stage.

Mr. Ovenden: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his assurances as far as they go, but will he ensure that the message he conveys to the Lord President is not just that there is concern here that we want passed on to the campaign organisations? We want him to look seriously at the idea of bringing in machinery to control expenditure. We want an assurance that the Government have not ruled out entirely the possibility of doing this, that the door is not completely closed. We want to be sure that the Lord President is prepared to accept the need for such controls.
There has been a great deal of criticism of the new clauses tonight but there has not been any great attempt to deal with the principle involved. In fact, there has been little criticism of the principle involved. I ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that he accepts the principle that is contained within the clause and that he sees the justice of the case for controls on expenditure. I hope that he has not entirely closed his mind to that possibility.

Mr. Emery: My hon. Friends and I have been relatively quiet on this matter, but the fact that we have been willing to ensure that the Committee debates it at this late hour is of some credit to us. Although we have been quiet, it should not be thought that we accede to the argument that has been presented by a small section of the Labour Party. The members of that section realise that they represent a small minority. They want to gain an advantage by attempting to ensure that they can have equality and equality of expenditure with those who oppose their view.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman has described us as a small section of the Labour Party. Does he usually describe a majority as a small section?

Mr. Emery: I am not confining my remarks to Members of Parliament. I am familiar with the West Country and I know that the views which have been expressed in this debate are not the views of the Labour Party in that area.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the amount of expenditure on both sides should be determined by his prediction of the outcome?

Mr. Emery: No. I was trying to make the suggestion that the proportion should be based not on equality but on the way in which the House voted. That is a very good reflection of opinion. That would mean that the limitation would reflect the vote of 370 to 157. That is not what Labour Members are suggesting. They are suggesting that there should be an absolute equality of expenditure. That is nonsense. As I have made clear, I do not believe that there should be any limitation. I hope that the Minister will express to his right hon. Friend not only the views of the rump of the Labour Party. Let him take with him the views of the whole Committee.

Mr. Grocott: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the opinion of the Committee should determine expenditure in terms of the forthcoming reference to the public at large? Does he agree that at the next General Election, bearing in mind there are 319 Labour Members and 276 Conservative Members, the proportionate expenditure of the two parties—

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that hon. Members will not pursue this argu-

ment. It has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. I hope that at this late hour hon. Members will confine themselves to the matters under discussion.

Mr. Emery: I was about to sit down. Perhaps the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) and I could pursue the matter over a drink on another occasion.

The Temporary Chairman: The Question is—

Mr. Ovenden: On a point of order, Mr. Williams. I thought that the Minister was to reply.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a matter for me.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 16

OFFICIAL INFORMATION FOR ELECTORS

'A shortened version of Command Paper No. 6003 "Membership of the European Community Report on Renegotiation" shall be delivered to every household in the United Kingdom in which electors reside after that shortened version has been approved by both Houses of Parliament'.—[Sir M. Havers.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Michael Havers: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Temporary Chairman: With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 126: Clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
'(7) Only information supplied by the Britain in Europe and the National Referendum Campaign shall be officially delivered to every household in the United Kingdom in which electors reside'.

Sir M. Havers: This is a clause which by reason of its clarity and its breathtaking simplicity will, I am sure, be attractive to every member of the Committee, except, perhaps those who manage the Government's business. What is suggested is that the House should have a say about the form of the mini White Paper which it is proposed should be sent to every household. This White Paper would be a digest of Command Paper 6003, published before the Bill.
We all know that a digest can be inaccurate. If all hon. Members were invited to make a digest of the White


Paper, the results would all be different and no one would agree with anyone else's version. The emphasis can be shifted quite unintentionally. Accordingly, it seems that the House should have the chance to consider the version put forward by the Government. The Government could then take into consideration the views expressed, and it is much more likely that the final version would be one which not only met with the approval of the House but had the further advantage of being fair to both sides.

Mr. Ron Thomas: There are many Labour Members who feel a sense of injustice because they are unable to move Amendment No. 126, which would give us an opportunity to make a clear-cut judgment on whether the White Paper of the kind the Government have already produced, or any White Paper, should be distributed in the way set out in the Bill. The issue of a "Comic Cuts" version of this White Paper is in many ways more fundamental than the whole question of the information unit or of the amount of funds available to both sides.
I remind my hon. Friends of what we said in our manifesto. We said:
But whatever the outcome in Brussels, the decision will be taken here by the British people."
Many of our supporters took that to mean that the Government would take a neutral stance. They thought it meant that the Government would do their best in the negotiations but would not come down so heavily on one side of the argument as they have done.
Of course we welcome the referendum. One of the main reasons why I welcome it has to do with the issue of sovereignty which, I believe, belongs not here but to the British people. A number of Conservative Members have referred to Burke and other political theorists. I remember the Leader of the Opposition almost stating that the democratic processes of Britain had been won by the stroke of a pen by Dicey. My history of the winning of the democratic franchise from 1832 onwards is rather different.
2.15 a.m.
The British people are being called upon to give up their sovereignty, and

only they can make a decision as to whether or not they should give it up. In arriving at that decision, I hope that the party of which I am a member will ensure to the utmost that the British people can make a considered judgment without all the many pressures which have been highlighted during this debate, and that the Government will not add to them.
In my judgment, the White Paper is full of blatant distortions. We went through them when we debated the White Paper. An important Community document was distorted when it was reproduced in this White Paper. We can go on asking questions which we asked during that debate, but on that occasion we received no satisfactory answers from our Front Bench.
If the White Paper is full of distortions, Heaven help us when we see the "Comic Cuts" version, because a smaller document is bound to be much more full of these distortions. If the British people decide that they wish to stay in the Common Market on the basis of the White Paper and then realise within a few months that what the Government have said in the White Paper is untrue, it will do the Government, this party and the House no good whatever.
The issue of the White Paper as a "Comic Cuts" version is also likely to lead to distortion in communications, because I am told that the media, and certainly one programme, are already asking questions about the Market and giving answers from the White Paper, saying that they do not come down on one side or another but that they are in the middle of the spectrum because the White Paper carries with it the aura of responsibility and respectability. I am pretty certain that many in this Committee consider that it is a distortion of what happened in the negotiations.
I suggest to the Front Bench that the majority on this side who voted against the White Paper were voting against what we felt was the failure to achieve renegotiation objectives, but also felt that what was achieved was given a completely distorted slant in the White Paper. I appeal to the Government to think seriously about this matter. I hope they will come to a decision not to issue a "Comic Cuts" version of the White Paper.

Mr. Goodhart: I find myself in broad agreement with at least part of what the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) said.
The Parliamentary Secretary earlier suggested that there were recent successful precedents for the Government to distribute to every household information of the sort contained in the White Paper. I am not sure that I entirely agree that the precedents have been entirely successful or that they are in any way exact.
The first example to which I think the Minister was referring was the distribution of a pamphlet about decimal coinage. That went to about half of the households throughout the country. There was then a postal strike. I gather that the distribution of that pamphlet has been abandoned. I am told that at present there is the distribution of a booklet about fire precautions. This again has reached about half of the households, and distribution has been suspended for the duration of the referendum campaign.

Mr. William Price: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. The first one was about fire precautions. He is wrong about the other one, which was "How to Catch a Thief." All that I was arguing was that from a practical point of view the Post Office says that this can be done, it has been done and the Home Office is satisfied.

Mr. Goodhart: It can be and has been done. In 1948 I managed to initiate the distribution of a pamphlet on national insurance to every household, and after a while people knew how to choose a doctor under the National Health Service. I accept that it has been done and can be done. In every case in the past, however, this has been done on factual, non-controversial, non-political material. As far as I know, this is the first time in our history that it has been suggested that the Government should distribute to every household in the country a document which is of a substantially political nature.
One ought to ask a few questions about the preparation of the document. Who is drawing it up? I have seen reference to the possibility that the main author of this popular version of the White Paper is the man who dreamed up the "Whose finger on the trigger" stunt that marred

the end of the 1950 General Election campaign. Who is drawing up this mini White Paper, and who will have a look at it when the draft is prepared? Presumably the Cabinet will have a look at it—although these days one cannot be sure that it will be shown to all members of the Cabinet. Will a draft be shown to the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party or the leaders of the other political parties in Parliament? On an issue of extreme political sensitivity, with a document going to every household, surely it ought to be looked at with extreme care.
I hope that it is planned to show the document to the leaders of all Opposition parties in Parliament. But above all, before we send out a document that can play an important part in the whole referendum campaign, it should be scrutinised by Parliament itelf. It should be approved by Parliament before we take this wholly unprecedented step of sending, with the Government's seal of approval, what is frankly a political document to every household in the country.

Mr. English: As I have said before, I am frankly dismayed by the spread of authoritarian means of government into our own Government. But the amendment is not much of an improvement. It suggests that the House of Commons, which was not elected for the purpose, should decide the format of this version of the White Paper. I shudder to think of the House of Commons commenting on a multi-page, multi-coloured document of this character.
However, no one in the House of Commons, on either side—and not the 16 little men who are frightened because there should be only 11 of them in the Cabinet; 11 out of 16, to give them their due-proportion of their own party—none of those men nor anyone on the Opposition Front Bench has ever suggested being as fair as the Australians are.
In the Australian Referendum Acts the suggestion is perfectly simple. The "Yes" case, which is usually the Government's case, is decided by those Members of Parliament who vote "Yes" in the debate on the subsequent referendum. The "No" case, which is usually that of the Opposition, is decided by the Members of the Australian House of Commons who voted "No" in the debate on the referendum.


On that basis, if we had done that there would have been no Government White Paper separate from the "Yes" vote. The "Yes" and the "No" publications would have been decided by the respective factions in the House of Commons.
That is how fairly it is done in the British Commonwealth, which follows our ancient ideals of fairness. That is the difference between the fair way and the grossly unfair, potentially based way in which the Government and the authors of the amendment approach this question.

Sir Michael Havers: I have done my best to follow the reasoning of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), although that was not easy. The hon. Gentleman says that in Australia each side decides how its paper should be written. I do not see how that contradicts my suggestion that Parliament should have the right to comment so that the Government could finally adjust the White Paper upon an overall consideration of what has been said.

Mr. English: I concede that the hon. and learned Gentleman's method is marginally better than that of the Government. The Government's case was decided by only 16 people. The hon. and learned Gentleman is at least offering us some more. Both are examples of biased authoritarian methods.

Mr. Hoyle: If the Government intend to persist with the idea of sending out the White Paper, they should bear in mind that when the Tories sent out their information about the Common Market through the Post Office the matter was discussed by the Labour Party, which roundly condemned the proposal. The members of the Labour Party were disturbed. Having condemned the Tories for doing that, why should the Government persist in sending out to every household their version of the White Paper? It is unfair. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to take that matter into consideration. When he replies, perhaps he will be able to say whether the Government will reconsider their decision.

Mr. Emery: The Government surely cannot object to Parliament debating the document which is to be produced.
I was concerned at the criticisms of the Conservative Government when the document which they issued was not considered by Parliament. I was not thinking that a referendum on EEC matters would be reintroduced. However, I recommended that if documents containing Government ideas were to be issued they should first be debated in the House.
The Minister will say that the time scale is different. The Government have got themselves into this silly position. They have settled the date. They said that the referendum would be held on 5th June. If the date is put back to the 19th most of the Government's arguments about the difficulties of the time scale will pale into insignificance.
I do not accept the argument from the Treasury Bench that this proposal must he opposed because of the time scale. If there are other arguments, I shall be delighted to hear them. If no others are produced, I hope that all hon. Members will unite to ensure that a debate on the document takes place. I am sure that sufficient hon. Members agree with me to ensure that we shall win our case if we put it to a Division.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. William Price: The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) was right about this being basically a time scale argument. The point of the new clause is whether Parliament should approve the text of the popular version of the White Paper. We see a number of objections to that proposition. The clause does not say whether the document would be subject to a vote as it stood or whether it might be envisaged that there would, as I suspect, be a procedure for amendment. If that were the case, the task of securing approval would be likely to be very substantial and take up a great deal of parliamentary time.
Even if the document were to be subject to a "take it or leave it" arrangement—I think that would be unacceptable to the House of Commons—securing approval of it could still give rise to extensive parliamentary debate, in addition to the full debate on the renegotiated terms to which the original version of the White Paper was relevant and to which overwhelming approval was given.
I suspect that the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) doubts the ability of the Government to produce a fair and objective popular version of the White Paper. Time alone will tell whether that has been done. I believe that it is possible, and that in that respect at least we shall meet the satisfaction of the Committee.
The conclusive objection to the clause, however, is the practical one. We mentioned earlier that plans for the printing of the document are well advanced, subject—I stress this point—to parliamentary approval. Even then it will only just be possible to achieve complete distribution a week or 10 days before polling day if all goes well with the printers.

Sir Michael Havers: Is the Committee to understand that the printing—I do not mean the physical printing—is already advanced in that the draft has been prepared and agreed?

Mr. Price: Yes. The draft has been approved by Ministers. Clearly any decision on the printing is subject to the authority of the House of Commons.

Mr. Jay: rose—

Mr. Price: As I explained earlier, there are real printing difficulties these days. That is why so many firms are involved. There is a shortage of printing material. There is an absolute shortage of envelopes too. That was one of the main reasons why we came to the view that acceptance of the new clause was impossible. Plans are advanced and, if Parliament gives the go-ahead the printing will be put in hand very quickly. However, the proposed clause would make life impossible.

Sir Michael Havers: I am grateful for the assistance that I have been given. I understand, however, that the order to roll the printing presses cannot be given until Royal Assent has been achieved. In those circumstances, if the draft has been agreed, why cannot it be debated next Monday? That would give an opportunity for any amendment that the Government might think, represented the view of the House. It could still be done without affecting the time scale.

Mr. Goodhart: Before the Minister replies to my hon. and learned Friend, may I ask whether he could give an answer to the question I put to him

earlier? In view of the importance of there being general acceptance of this document, may I ask whether any attempt has been made within the Cabinet to clear it with the Opposition parties? Surely there would be no technical problems about that.

Mr. Price: The answer to that question is "No". The document was not shown to the Opposition for approval any more than the previous Government's White Papers—I have been in Parliament long enough to have read many of them—were shown to us for approval.

Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend said that this document, to which many of us object, will go forward subject to the approval of Parliament. Will he explain when and how the House of Commons will be asked to give or withhold its approval?

Mr. Price: If the Committee were to decide that there should not be a popular version, we should be in some difficulty. It is not my fault. I did not select the clauses for debate, but there clearly is a problem from that point of view. I assure my right hon. Friend that we are not bold enough to assume that he and his hon. Friends would do anything, one way or the other.

Mr. Jay: rose—

Mr. Gow: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I do not know how many times the Minister has to sit down before he finally resumes his seat. Did the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) want to ask a question?

Mr. Jay: Yes.

The Chairman: I think that the Minister has finally sat down.

Mr. Gow: rose—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Gow: But we are in Committee.

The Chairman: I know that we are in Committee. I need no advice on that. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to make a speech or to ask a question?

Mr. Gow: I am seeking to make a speech. I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee, and indeed for a wider audience, to invite the Minister to answer one simple question. It is within the recollection of the Committee


that a few moments ago the hon. Gentle-man said that the document to which he referred had been approved by Ministers. Which Ministers have approved it and which have not?

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 19

ADVERTISEMENTS

'Every advertising medium which accepts an advertisement promoting the views of either persons who wish electors to vote "Yes" or "No" in the referendum shall, if so requested

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 152.

Division No. 188.]
AYES
[2.37 a.m.


Emery, Peter
Havers, Sir Michael



Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Mr. Michael Roberts and


Grist, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.




NOES


Archer, Peter
Golding, John
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Grant, John (Islington C)
Ovenden, John


Ashton, Joe
Grocott, Bruce
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Park, George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hardy, Peter
Parry, Robert


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harper, Joseph
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bates, Alf
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Price, William (Rugby)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Radice, Giles


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bishop, E. S.
Halton, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rooker, J. W.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rowlands, Ted


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hunter, Adam
Sedgemore, Brian


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Janner, Greville
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Campbell, Ian
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Canavan, Dennis
John, Brynmor
Silverman, Julius


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Skinner, Dennis


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Small, William


Cartwright, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Judd, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Clemilson, Ivor
Kerr, Russell
Stallard, A. W.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lamble, David
Stoddart, David


Corbett, Robin
Lamborn, Harry
Stott, Roger


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lamond, James
Strang, Gavin


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Litterlck, Tom
Swain, Thomas


Crawshaw, Richard
Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cronin John
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Cryer, Bob
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davidson, Arthur
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Maclennan Robert
Tinn, James


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McNamara, Kevin
Tomlinson, John


Deakins, Eric
Madden, Max
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Mahon, Simon
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dempsey, James
Marks, Kenneth
Ward, Michael


Dormand, J. D.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wellbeloved, James


Dunn, James A.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
While, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunnett, Jack
Meacher, Michael
White, James (Pollok)


Edge, Geoff
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


English, Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Ennals, David
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, ltchen)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woodall, Alec


Evans, John (Newton)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mulley, RI Hon Frederick



Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


George, Bruce
Noble, Mike
Mr. Laurie Pavitt and


Gilbert, Dr John
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. John Ellis.

by either Britain in Europe or the National Referendum Campaign, publish free of charge an advertisement of equal value promoting the opposite view to the original advertisement.—[Mr. English.]

Brought up, and read the First time

Mr. English: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a very simple clause. The original suggestion that there should be limitations on advertising came from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I am very pleased to support the case which he put forward. Those limitations were dropped in the White Paper, but in return in the White Paper there was the suggestion that adequate expenditure should be allowed to both sides in order to enable both sides to have an advertising campaign.
The object of the change was to ensure that there was a great interest in the election and a high poll. In fact, as we know from the Bill and from the previous discussions, the amount of money provided is hardly one-tenth of what is required for an adequate advertising campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) suggested a very simple means. It was suggested in the debate on the White Paper and on Second Reading that it was technically difficult to limit advertising expenditure. There is, in fact, no technical difficulty in limiting advertising expenditure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow pointed out at a Labour Party meeting. This proposed new clause merely embodies his suggestion, and it is extremely simple.
If any advertising medium—a newspaper, for example—accepts from one side an advertising advertisement, which in the case of a full-page advertisement can cost £6,000 or more, it must, if requested by the other side, publish an advertisement for that side free of charge.
The object is to ensure that, whatever inequalities of money there may be, there will at least be equality in advertising and fairness in advertising throughout the referendum campaign.

Mr. William Price: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has shown his usual ingenuity. His proposal is fascinating. But he will not be surprised to hear that I must ask the Committee to oppose it.
On the face of it there may be some validity in the argument that it would ensure equal treatment, but it would create far more problems than it tries to solve. It would produce an interesting situation. One side could presumably sit back happily and spend nothing on

advertising, safe in the knowledge that it would get the full benefit of the other side's expenditure. I can see problems arising in some quarters over that.
I am also certain that there would be a strong reaction from Fleet Street. Most newspapers are in financial difficulties, and one cannot imagine them willingly giving up page after page for unpaid advertising. They might seek to make a double charge for the initial advertisement to recover the cost of the free reply. I suspect that we should end up with little or no advertising.
The Government considered the possibility of banning advertising altogether or imposing strict limitations. Therefore, the clause is perhaps not as outrageous as some people might think. But we came to the view that it was neither possible nor desirable, for several reasons.
Any ban, or the requirement of the clause, could take effect only from Royal Assent to the Bill. It would be wholly ineffective in relation to advertising placed before that date. Secondly, we had to consider whether it was just and equitable to lay down this sort of regulation. Had we the right to tell organisations what they must or must not do? We took the view, I believe rightly, that we had not. Thirdly, we are anxious to do nothing which would produce a low poll. The effect of the clause would be to dry up advertising, diminish interest in the country and leave us with an indecisive result on the Market. I do not think that many hon. Members would want that.

Question put and negatived.

Schedule

FORM OF BALLOT PAPER

Mr. Goodhart: I beg to move Amendment No. 115, in page 4, line 4, at end insert 'Economic'.

The Chairman: With this amendment we are to discuss the following amendments:
No. 139, in page 4, line 5, leave out 'Community' and insert 'Communities'.
No. 88, in page 4, line 7, after 'European', insert Economic'.
No. 140, in page 4,line 7, leave out 'Community' and insert 'Communities'.


No. 89, in page 4, line 7, leave out (The Common Market)'.
No. 141, in the Title, line 3, leave out 'Community' and insert 'Communities'.
No. 132, in Clause 1 page 1, line 7, leave out 'Community' and insert 'Communities'.

Mr. Goodhart: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), in moving his new Clause 19, said that he was seeking to help the Prime Minister, and in a way I, too, am trying to help the Prime Minister. Before he became Prime Minister the right hon. Gentleman used to be keen on reminding the House that Europe was not the same as the European Economic Community, and when Ministers of the previous Conservative Government fell into using that shorthand term he constantly pointed out that there was a wider Europe—a Europe which included Eastern Europe, Norway, Scandinavia and even Spain and Portugal.
In fact, there is no way by which we can withdraw, even if we wanted to, from that wider European community. What the British people are being asked to decide on 5th June, or some later date if the Government cannot keep to their timetable, is not whether we should withdraw from Europe or the European community but whether we should depart from the European Economic Community. It is right, therefore, to have the correct words on the ballot paper.

Mr. Spearing: In the Long Title the words are "European Economic Community". That was pointed out in the debate, and the Front Bench did not dissent from it. The Government have acceded to the request that in the question set out in the schedule the words "Common Market" should be added in brackets, and I believe that that has universal acquiescence. But the words "European Community" still remain, and, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has pointed out, whatever may have happened subsequently, the legal title of the Community by which it has been known is European Economic Community. The European community as such is not the same as the EEC. If the Government wish to be fair about it, they should accept the new clause.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: The crucial question here is whether we want to be pre-

cise or whether we want to be understood by the broad mass of the people. The wording proposed for the ballot paper. "The European Community"—subsuming what are now, in the conventional phrase, the three Communities, with the second part of it, "The Common Market"—will be readily understood by everyone. If we simply put "European Economic Community"

Mr. Spearing: No, with "Common Market" in brackets.

Mr. Fowler: A group of amendments has been selected for debate and I am speaking to them. That would be the joint effect of them all, because some of them propose the insertion of "Economic", and the Liberal Party's Amendment No. 89 proposes the deletion of the words "Common Market".
There is a dilemma as to the right form of words. In our view, we have chosen a form of words which is about as comprehensible as any to the man in the street, who, after all, is being asked to vote in the referendum. Subsumed within those words "Economic Community", now commonly used to refer to the EEC, are the Coal and Steel Community and Euratom. This form of words, therefore, has the virtue also of comprehensiveness. I ask the Committee to resist the new clause.

Mr. English: The Government are to be congratulated on putting into the Bill the title "Common Market", which was not in the White Paper, but the fact remains that the new clause is almost as daft as some of the drafting of the Bill.
In the Bill, as has been said, we have the words "European Economic Community", the title of only one of the European Communities. In the question we say "European Community"—singular, when it is in fact plural—but fortunately we have in addition the words "Common Market", the title by which it is commonly known. It would be nice to have the legal title, which, as the Minister of State has admitted, is "European Communities", not "European Community" alone, since a country cannot belong to one and not to the others.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, to be considered this day, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

3.1 a.m.

Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I indicated that I would try to raise this matter, although I appreciate that the conduct of Report stage is a matter for Mr. Speaker rather than for you.
The House is in some difficulty. Several amendments to the Bill have been accepted and Report stage is to be later today. I think that that is a mistake, but I am aware of the difficulties. However, I wonder whether the Leader of the House can give us an idea of how we should deal with amendments, particularly to parts of the Bill that will not have been reprinted following amendments to them in Committee. I am not trying to be difficult, but there is a problem when a Bill is taken on Report without having been reprinted after amendments have been made to it.

Mr. Edward Short: The hon. Member has been here for the whole day, as we all know to our cost. He knows exactly what amendments have been carried. He can draft amendments and hand them in to the Table Office, and they will be dealt with.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. George Thomas): It is a matter for Mr. Speaker, of course, but this gives me the opportunity to clear up a little misunderstanding that arose earlier. It is in order for any hon. Member to move a new clause in Committee, although not on Report, even though his name is not attached to it on the Order Paper.

Mr. Emery: May I thank you for dealing with that matter so expeditiously, Mr.Deputy Speaker. I think that the problem may be resolved by an amendment on Report, but I should nevertheless like to thank you for your statement.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dormand.]

ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS

3.3 a.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: So far only 200 sheets of the

second series of 1:25,000 maps have been published out of 1,400, about one in seven or 13 per cent. They have been published at the rate of about 40 a year and the series will be completed only by the year 2000. Even for areas of the national parks, such as Snowdonia, we shall have to wait until the year 1982 for publication. That is an extremely unsatisfactory position.
The history of these maps goes back to just after the Second World War when it was decided to publish maps at the scale of 2½ inches to the mile, 1:25,000. They have been ideal for educational purposes and for all those interested in outdoor pursuits. The maps were issued as a provisional series and were based on survey work done for larger scale maps, 1:1,250 and 1:2,500 in urban areas and 1:10,560 in rural areas. Some of these maps were surveyed as long ago as 1899.
The sheet that I have here, for Llanarmon DC, in North Wales, says at the bottom:
Last fully revised 1899–1910.
Other partial systematic revisions 1947.
Major road revision 1969".
Yet it is the current map in the series that is now on sale, based on information which in many instances is 70 years old.
It was intended soon after the provisional edition had been brought out that it would be replaced by the first series maps. I believe that one trial sheet was issued, but before production could really start a new format was decided upon—the second series. A very slow rate of publication was decided upon. Since, in the early series, much of the Highlands of Scotland was never covered, it was also decided that the Highlands should be given priority in the publication of the new sheets.
During 1972 and 1973 the work of the Ordnance Survey was put under close scrutiny by the previous Government, following consultants' reports. It was suggested also that because of poor sales the whole series should be abandoned. The educational users and all those interested in outdoor pursuits made strong representations to the Government and eventually it was agreed to continue issuing the second series of 1:25,000 maps.
The present position is that the Ordnance Survey still has over 2,000 sheets


of the provisional edition and about 100 of these have been replaced by the new second edition. No further systematic revision of the provisional sheets is taking place, although I believe that major roads are still being added. The maps are becoming more and more rapidly out of date, and in some areas, particularly those recently affected by afforestation, they may become positively dangerous.
Rightly, the Ordnance Survey is reluctant to advertise such maps, although it still has to carry stocks, as do the shops. This is an expensive operation. Only 13 per cent. of the country is covered by the new second series. Again, the Ordnance Survey is reluctant to advertise these since many potential customers who inquire for a map find that it has not yet been published.
The Ordnance Survey thus has difficulty in pushing the old maps and the new ones. As a result, the sales of both are rather disappointing. On the other hand, proof that the public really want maps of this scale has been provided by the publication of the outdoor leisure maps. Pioneered by the Ordnance Survey and the Peak District National Park, an outdoor leisure map was issued in 1972. By Ordnance Survey standards its sales have been dramatic, while everyone I have spoken to connected with this in the national park has been delighted with the results in terms of improving mountain safety, access and so on.
Some more sheets have followed in this series, although unfortunately the other national parks have not been as directly involved. It clearly proves that, given a reasonably up-to-date map covering a reasonably large area—in this case about 20km by 20km—with widespread publicity the demand for this type of map is extremely large. I am sure that if the whole of rural England, Wales and Scotland were covered by the second series, the maps could be sold, covering their costs, or at least the cost of drawing the maps, printing and selling them. I do not claim that they would contribute a great deal to the cost of the survey, but that is being carried out in any event for other purposes. I am convinced that this thoroughly up-to-date map could be a profitable undertaking for the Ordnance Survey.
Why cannot the 1:25,000 second series maps be made available more quickly? There are two problems that arise. Since these maps were derived from others of a larger scale, we have to await the availability of such maps. A new survey of Britain is at present being carried out at scales of 1:1,250 and 1:2,500 for all the urban and semi-rural parts of Britain, and the rest of Britain is being surveyed at 1:10,000. The new survey is supposed to be completed by the year 1980 and will also be kept up to date as the survey proceeds.
Unfortunately, priority in this surveying has been given to the urban areas and to areas which have been requested by local authorities mainly for planning purposes. Unfortunately, too, the 1:25,000 second series maps are of least use in the urban areas and some of the sheets printed so far are therefore of least value. Survey material is not available for some of the areas where it would be most useful. The slow rate of production is mainly due to the second factor that only a small number of people and a small amount of resources are allocated to the second series 1:25,000 maps.
The Ordnance Survey says in its publicity material of the 1:25,000 series
its detailed depiction of the country makes the series invaluable for professional, educational and recreational purposes".
In teaching geography it is an exceptionally useful tool which, particularly in schools, also encourages the development of the practical skill of map reading. In walking and climbing it is essential for those who want to find their way easily and safely and it is particularly important for the growing sport of orienteering. It is an ideal map on which footpaths can be shown clearly and, because field boundaries are shown, it is the map from which footpaths can easily be followed to the great advantage of both the walker and the farmer. In mountainous areas, particularly in bad weather, it is the essential map for those who want to follow a particular route and come off the mountains in safety.
I admit that in the built-up areas of our large cities the map has very limited uses, although even here some local authorities have used it for overprinting purposes to show leisure facilities. It is extremely useful for educational purposes and for


the land use survey to be overprinted upon.
To be fair, the Ordnance Survey has admitted the problems and frustrations about demand. I think it has also agreed to look into the issues and perhaps to increase very slightly the rate at which it is producing new maps. It has suggested to the map users' conference that it might suggest ways in which it can alter its allocation of resources. But I do not think that this goes far enough.
To sum up the present position, the Ordnance Survey is still selling an out-of-date, inaccurate and dangerous product, and it is being allowed to replace it with a vastly improved, safe product only at a very slow rate. Many of the new maps have been produced for the least useful areas and the Ordnance Survey itself is unhappy about that. It would like Government approval for a slight increase in manpower which would allow it to get on with producing these maps quickly.
I have certain questions to put to the Minister. First, will the Government allow the Ordnance Survey the resources to complete the second series of 1:25,000 maps in the next 10 years and not in the next 25 years as planned. I ask the Government to encourage the Ordnance Survey to complete the survey of the base maps in the national park areas and areas of outstanding natural beauty as quickly as possible and to set a target of publishing maps of these areas by 1980. I ask the Government to accept that the 1:25,000 maps are the ideal way of depicting public rights of way and that such maps should be made more easily available to the public. That is almost as important as signposting these routes.
I ask the Government to continue experiments such as publishing the outdoor leisure map and obtaining sponsors for Ordnance Survey maps. I ask them to recognise that the outdoor leisure maps are important but that they are not the complete answer. It is important that we get the series for the whole of the country and not for a few selected areas.
If we do not get a complete series, people will be going to certain areas for peace and quiet only to find many other people in the same areas.
Finally, I remind the Government that the real expense incurred by the

Ordnance Survey is in making the survey. Once the survey has been made it should be made available to the public. I feel that it is extremely important to have this set of maps published. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to indicate a major improvement in the proposed timetable.

3.16 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on initiating this debate. It is the second Adjournment debate that we have had on this subject within a couple of years. I am sorry that the results of the previous debate have not been such as to bring about the position that my hon. Friend would have wished.
I heartily concur with everything my hon. Friend has said about the usefulness of this particular map. It is especially useful for people who do not use it for professional purposes—namely, walkers, orienteerers, sportsmen and school teachers. I have considerable personal knowledge as a teacher. It is the smallest scale on which field boundaries, boundaries of gardens and other small details can be found. It is, therefore, an extremely good map for all sorts of non-professional purposes.
On Report on the Government Trading Funds Bill in 1973 concern was expressed about the whole function of the Ordnance Survey. In another place the Ordnance Survey was deleted from the Bill, although it was pointed out that it could be brought back by affirmative resolution.
The Ordnance Survey was debated again on 24th October 1973 when the Lords amendments came back to the House. On the same day there was an Adjournment debate on the 2½in. scale. In those debates reference was made to the review which had taken place inside the Ordnance Survey. In referring to that review I said:
We do not know the position about the second edition of the 2½ in. map. The basic situation has remained the same. The review is secret."—[Official Report. 24th October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 1436.]
I am not necessarily complaining that we have not had the full report made public, but it seems that the complaints which were made at that time are still being


made by the organisations which have made representations to my hon. Friend.
In the Adjournment debate of 24th October 1973 the Minister said that it had been decided to continue the 2½in. series and to cover the country fully. As my hon. Friend has said, however, it has been covered in a way that is not satisfactory. That is not surprising since the report was not made public.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, who I know has the interests of the Ordnance Survey at heart, that it is a pity we have had to debate this matter for the fourth time in the past few years. The map is an extremely useful one. There has been mention in earlier debates about possible Exchequer help. That was mentioned on 24th October 1973. The Minister said that Exchequer support would continue if necessary and that in coming to a decision the Government would have regard to the nature of the requirements of the private sector as well as those of the public sector.
I hope that the Minister will give some assurance on the updating of this valuable, well-liked and, in many places, very popular series of maps.

3.20 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I am glad that both my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have raised this question. The publication of Ordnance Survey maps is a subject in which they have both taken great interest. Their views are shared by a large number of map users including conservationists, educationists, outdoor leisure seekers and those who love and enjoy the countryside.
The present publication situation of Ordnance Survey maps at the scale of 1:25,000 is better understood if we look at the history of this series which is in itself of interest. Whereas the 1-in. map and the larger scales, 25 in. and 6 in. in particular, had their origin in the early years of the last century, it was not until 1914 that a need arose for a map of 1:25,000 scale. Production of the map was tailored to War Office requirements and it was not made available to the public until the early 1930s, by which time coverage was still limited to certain areas.
It was the Davidson Committee—an interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of Viscount Davidson which investigated the Ordnance Survey during the mid–1930s—which in 1938 recommended publication of a complete series of 1:25,000 scale maps to meet not only military but also civilian needs, in particular the needs of education, walking and regional planning.
On the outbreak of the Second World War coverage was extended quickly in response to defence requirements but the resulting map, again tailored to military needs, was of inadequate cartographic standards for a civilian map series. The first 1:25,000 map designed for general use commenced publication shortly after the war and coverage of the country, except for certain areas in Scotland, was completed by 1956. The map was known as the provisional series because it was intended that it should be replaced as soon as possible by a regular series based on new post-war survey. More recently the series has become known as the first series and is now being gradually superseded by entirely new second series mapping as originally intended.
The new second series mapping was designed in the early 1960s and publication commenced during 1965. As soon as the first sheets became available it was decided to cease full revision of the first series in order to devote the maximum available resources to producing the new mapping. Thus, since 1965 the only revision of first series sheets has been of major features the omission of which would seriously impair the usefulness of the sheet. As a result, although four-fifths of Great Britain is still covered by first series sheets, they have naturally become considerably out of date in the last 10 years and during that period it has been possible to publish only 200 sheets of the second series at an average of 20 sheets a year. The great majority of these second series sheets are, however, twice the size of the first series sheets. This change in size of sheet means that while the first series covered the country in 2.000 maps. the second series will need only about 1,400 sheets.
My hon. Friends will recall the announcement in February 1973 by the then Under-Secretary of State of new aims for the Ordnance Survey. This was followed by a number of reviews of


mapping requirements by users of Ordnance Survey maps at various scales which were conducted by means of detailed consultations with the user interests concerned. The 1:25,000 series featured prominently in these consultations and, as a result of evidence from the wide range of interests in both public and private sectors served by this series, the Government decided that national coverage at 1:25,000 scale should continue to be published with a range of information similar to that of the second series.
As a result of further studies within the Ordnance Survey of the map specification and methods of production, it has now been decided to retain the 1:25,000 second series specification in the same form in which it has been published hitherto. Details of this specification, and also of the specification of the first series which it replaces, are given in Chapter 6 of a new book—the Descriptive Manual—which is due to be published by the Ordnance Survey on 1st May. I am sure that both my hon. Friends have read or are about to read that book.
One of the main reasons for raising this matter at present is the current public interest in footpaths that have been legally defined as rights of way. I understand that many people consider that Ordnance Survey maps are the only really convenient way for interested members of the public to find out the existence and exact location of rights of way. This may well be so, and the Department is considering ways in which procedures for the preparation and updating of the definitive maps maintained by county councils could be improved.
Footpaths which are rights of way are clearly marked on 1:25,000 second series maps but not on the first series. Some map users have made representations to the Ordnance Survey for the depiction of rights of way information on first series sheets. I believe that this would be a mistake since, as we are all agreed, the aim should be to complete publication of the second series as soon as possible, and any resources devoted to work on first series sheets would delay the achievement of this aim. It should also be remembered that the Ordnance Survey is currently publishing the new 1:50,000 series of maps which contain all the available up-to-date information on rights of way at a

scale suitable for a wide range of purposes. The first 103 sheets of this series—a mammoth task in itself—were published a year ago and the remaining 101 sheets for the northern half of the country are due early next year.
The constraints in bringing forward publication of the second series are twofold. First, the map is derived from new surveys at 1:10,000 scale and this will not be complete for another 10 years or so. The other constraint is the availability of manpower resources in the Ordnance Survey for this work. Given the first constraint alone, it would take about 15 years to complete coverage of the country with the new maps, an average publication rate of about 75 sheets a year. But the current resources allow for publication of only about 35 sheets a year giving, as my hon. Friend knows, an eventual expected completion date of about the year 2000.
The Ordnance Survey is currently undertaking a study to see whether any economies can be made in production methods for this or any other series to enable this rate to be increased. It is not possible at the present time to increase the total resources available for this work, and any switch of manpower would affect the priorities for the publication of maps at other scales, in particular the large-scale maps and the 1:50,000 series.
At the last series of consultative meetings held by the Ordnance Survey in November 1974, map users were given a full account of the situation and were invited to submit their views on the production programme. The matter will be reviewed at the next meeting this autumn when it is expected that the director-general will report on the results of the study.
In a further effort to help map users the Ordnance Survey intends to continue the publication of the popular new outdoor leisure series maps, seven sheets of which have been published so far. These maps are entirely self-supporting financially and because they make use of existing mapping material the resources required for their publication are fairly limited. Many of the areas selected for these maps are in national parks or other popular walking and outdoor leisure areas. In all cases where it is available,


rights of way information is clearly depicted together with a selection of tourist and other outdoor interest information appropriate to the area.
I should also say a further word about the improvements made by the Ordnance Survey in marketing the 1:25,000 maps. During the past three years, as a result of intensive sales efforts a large number of shops throughout the country have been persuaded to stock the 1: 25,000 series and outdoor leisure maps. Sales during this period totalled 1,572,000 sheets at a gross retail value of £644,000. This represents an increase of 30 per cent. in the volume of sales compared with the previous three years. The marketing of outdoor leisure maps has been particularly successful. Sales since the first sheet was published in 1972 have totalled 93,800 sheets at a gross retail value of £95,000. Despite this success, revenue from sales and from copyright royalties of 1:25,000 mapping as a whole does not cover the costs of production and maintenance. This is mainly because of the exceptionally high cost of producing brand-new mapping which is drawn to the high cartographic standards of the Ordnance Survey. However, every effort is being made, and will continue to be made, towards achieving a situation in which this useful series will eventually pay for itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South mentioned the question

of the Ordnance Survey acquiring trading fund status under the Government Trading Funds Act 1973. Let me say at once that this is not an immediate prospect. Hon. Members may like to be reminded that the accounting system of the Ordnance Survey was until recently limited to the traditional one of ensuring compliance of expenditure with the estimate; it did not provide an effective measure of the cost of the Ordnance Survey's individual services and products. Following the announcement in February 1973 of a statement of aims for the Ordnance Survey given by the then Secretary of State, a system of trading accounts was introduced to enable the cost of individual services and products to be identified. This system is still not operative. Until full information is available it will not be possible to come to any view whether there would be justifiable cause for any change in the present arrangements.
I hope that in this very interesting debate—and a rare debate on the Ordnance Survey in the House—I have satisfied the interests of both of my hon. Friends. I know that they are representing a very large number of members of the public in raising this matter in the House, albeit at a very unusual hour of the morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Four o'clock a.m.